ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Nucl. Med.
Sec. Physics and Data Analysis
Volume 5 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnume.2025.1597902
This article is part of the Research TopicTotal Body Positron Emission Tomography: Science and Clinical applicationsView all articles
Evaluating image-derived input functions for cerebral [18F]MC225 PET studies
Provisionally accepted
Giordana Salvi de Souza1,2
Pascalle Mossel1,3
Joost F. Somsen1
Laura Providência1Anna L. Bartels4Antoon T. M. Willemsen1Rudi A. J. O. Dierckx1Cristiane R. G. Furini2,5
Adriaan Anthonius Lammertsma1
Charalampos Tsoumpas1Gert Luurtsema1*- 1University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- 2Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
- 3Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, Leiden, Netherlands
- 4Ommelander Hospital Group, Groningen, Netherlands
- 5Laboratory of Cognition and Memory Neurobiology, Brain Institute, PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Kinetic modelling of brain PET data is crucial for estimating quantitative biological parameters, traditionally requiring arterial sampling. This study evaluated whether arterial samples could be omitted to estimate the image-derived input function (IDIF) using a long axial field-of-view PET scanner. The use of internal carotid arteries (ICA) for IDIF estimation, along with venous samples for plasma-to-whole blood ratios and plasma parent fractions, was also assessed. Six healthy volunteers underwent [18F]MC225 scans with manual arterial sampling. IDIFs were derived from the aortic arch (IDIFAA) and calibrated using manual arterial samples (IDIFAA_CAL). ICA-derived IDIF was also calibrated (IDIFCA_CAL) and compared to IDIFAA_CAL. In a separate group of six volunteers, venous and arterial samples were collected to evaluate plasma-to-whole blood ratios, plasma parent fractions, and IDIF calibration (IDIFCA_CAL_VEN). Volume of distribution (VT) of different brain regions was estimated for all IDIFs techniques, corrected for plasma-to-whole blood ratio and plasma parent fraction (IDIFAA,P, IDIFAA_CAL,P, IDIFICA_CAL,P and IDIFICA_CAL_VEN_P). Our findings revealed discrepancies between IDIFAA and arterial samples, highlighting the importance of calibration. The differences between IDIFAA,P and IDIFAA_CAL,P were 9.2% for area under the curve and 4.0% for brain VT. IDIFICA_CAL,P showed strong agreement with IDIFA_CAL,P, with 1.2% VT difference. Venous sampling showed consistent agreement with arterial sampling for plasma parameters but was unreliable for IDIF calibration, leading to 39% VT differences. This study emphasises that arterial samples are still required for IDIF calibration and reliable VT estimation for [18F]MC225 PET tracer. ICA-derived IDIF, when calibrated, provides reliable VT estimates. Venous sampling is a potential alternative for estimating plasma parameters, but it is unsuitable for IDIF calibration.
Keywords: Long Axial Field of View PET, pharmacokinetics, Venous sampling, quantitative analysis, IDIF, Kinetic analyses
Received: 21 Mar 2025; Accepted: 19 May 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Salvi de Souza, Mossel, Somsen, Providência, Bartels, Willemsen, Dierckx, Furini, Lammertsma, Tsoumpas and Luurtsema. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Gert Luurtsema, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.