Kinetic analysis of cardiac dynamic 18F-Florbetapir PET in healthy volunteers and amyloidosis patients: A pilot study
This study aimed to explore the potential of full dynamic PET kinetic analysis in assessing amyloid binding and perfusion in the cardiac region using 18F-Florbetapir PET, establishing a quantitative approach in the clinical assessment of cardiac amyloidosis disease. The distribution volume ratios (D...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Heliyon 2024-02, Vol.10 (4), p.e26021-e26021, Article e26021 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | This study aimed to explore the potential of full dynamic PET kinetic analysis in assessing amyloid binding and perfusion in the cardiac region using 18F-Florbetapir PET, establishing a quantitative approach in the clinical assessment of cardiac amyloidosis disease.
The distribution volume ratios (DVRs) and the relative transport rate constant (R1), were estimated by a pseudo-simplified reference tissue model (pSRTM2) and pseudo-Logan plot (pLogan plot) with kidney reference for the region of interest-based and voxel-wise-based analyses. The parametric images generated using the pSRTM2 and linear regression with spatially constrained (LRSC) algorithm were then evaluated. Semi-quantitative analyses include standardized uptake value ratios at the early phase (SUVREP, 0.5–5 min) and late phase (SUVRLP, 50–60 min) were also calculated.
Ten participants [7 healthy controls (HC) and 3 cardiac amyloidosis (CA) subjects] underwent a 60-min dynamic 18F-Florbetapir PET scan. The DVRs estimated from pSRTM2 and Logan plot were significantly increased (HC vs CA; DVRpSRTM2: 0.95 ± 0.11 vs 2.77 ± 0.42, t’(2.13) = 7.39, P = 0.015; DVRLogan: 0.80 ± 0.12 vs 2.90 ± 0.55, t’(2.08) = 6.56, P = 0.020), and R1 were remarkably decreased in CA groups, as compared to HCs (HC vs CA; 1.08 ± 0.37 vs 0.56 ± 0.10, t’(7.63) = 3.38, P = 0.010). The SUVREP and SUVRLP were highly correlated to R1 (r = 0.97, P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2405-8440 2405-8440 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26021 |