Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24080962›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2013

Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: I. Concept, acquisition protocol optimization and clinical application.

Nicolas A Karakatsanis, Martin A Lodge, Abdel K Tahari, Y Zhou, Richard L Wahl, Arman Rahmim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of biguanide therapy on hepaticAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. First Total-Body Kinetics Study ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Mitigating bladder signal inEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicolas A KarakatsanisDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Martin A Lodge
Abdel K Tahari
Y Zhou
Richard L Wahl
Arman Rahmim

Funding

High End Computing for PET/SPECTS10RR023623 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WONG, DEAN FOSTER · 2007 to 2007
$205k
NCRR NIH HHS 1S10RR023623NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR023623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Static whole-body PET/CT, employing the standardized uptake value (SUV), is considered the standard clinical approach to diagnosis and treatment response monitoring for a wide range of oncologic malignancies. Alternative PET protocols involving dynamic acquisition of temporal images have been implemented in the research setting, allowing quantification of tracer dynamics, an important capability for tumor characterization and treatment response monitoring. Nonetheless, dynamic protocols have been confined to single-bed-coverage limiting the axial field-of-view to ~15-20 cm, and have not been translated to the routine clinical context of whole-body PET imaging for the inspection of disseminated disease. Here, we pursue a transition to dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging, by presenting, within a unified framework, clinically feasible multi-bed dynamic PET acquisition protocols and parametric imaging methods. We investigate solutions to address the challenges of: (i) long acquisitions, (ii) small number of dynamic frames per bed, and (iii) non-invasive quantification of kinetics in the plasma. In the present study, a novel dynamic (4D) whole-body PET acquisition protocol of ~45 min total length is presented, composed of (i) an initial 6 min dynamic PET scan (24 frames) over the heart, followed by (ii) a sequence of multi-pass multi-bed PET scans (six passes × seven bed positions, each scanned for 45 s). Standard Patlak linear graphical analysis modeling was employed, coupled with image-derived plasma input function measurements. Ordinary least squares Patlak estimation was used as the baseline regression method to quantify the physiological parameters of tracer uptake rate Ki and total blood distribution volume V on an individual voxel basis. Extensive Monte Carlo simulation studies, using a wide set of published kinetic FDG parameters and GATE and XCAT platforms, were conducted to optimize the acquisition protocol from a range of ten different clinically acceptable sampling schedules examined. The framework was also applied to six FDG PET patient studies, demonstrating clinical feasibility. Both simulated and clinical results indicated enhanced contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) for Ki images in tumor regions with notable background FDG concentration, such as the liver, where SUV performed relatively poorly. Overall, the proposed framework enables enhanced quantification of physiological parameters across the whole body. In addition, the total acquisition length can be reduced from 45 to ~35 min and still achieve improved or equivalent CNR compared to SUV, provided the true Ki contrast is sufficiently high. In the follow-up companion paper, a set of advanced linear regression schemes is presented to particularly address the presence of noise, and attempt to achieve a better trade-off between the mean-squared error and the CNR metrics, resulting in enhanced task-based imaging.

Indexed as

Four-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMonte Carlo MethodPhantoms, ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyTime FactorsWhole Body Imaging

Identifiers

PMID24080962
PMCPMC3941007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.