PET is an appropriate method to display the functional activities in target tissue using many types of traces. The visual assessment of PET images plus the semiquantitative parameter (SUV) are the main diagnostic standards considered in identifying the malignant lesion. However, these standards lack occasionally the proper specificity and/or sensitivity. That emphasizes the importance of considering supplemental diagnostic criteria such as the kinetic parameter. The latter gives the way to image the ongoing metabolic processes within the target tissue as well as to identify the alterations occurring at the microscale level before they become observable in the conventional PET-imaging. The importance of kinetic analysis of PET imaging has increased with newly developed PET devices that offer images of good quality and high spatial resolution. In this paper, we highlighted the potential contribution of kinetic analysis in improving the diagnostic accuracy in intracranial tumour, lung tumour, liver tumour, colorectal tumour, bone and soft tissue tumours, and prostate cancer. Moreover, we showed that the appropriate therapy monitoring can be best achieved after considering the kinetic parameters. These promising results indicate that the kinetic analysis of PET imaging may become an essential part in preclinical and clinical molecular imaging as well. 1. Introduction In clinical practice the visual evaluation of PET finding in addition to the semiquantitative parameter (SUV) are the main criteria in delineation of tumor focus. Indeed the uptake measured in the static imaging is a consequence of multiple succeeding miniprocesses that may be exposed by the kinetic analysis of dynamic PET acquisition. That occurs via a sophisticated program depending on complex mathematical relations. In the different PET technologies, the ultimate uptake of radiopharmaceutical consists of a set of reaction pathways with corresponding rate coefficients and reverses rate coefficients. The dynamic PET against static PET may demonstrate these reactions after the kinetic analysis, offering the best methodology to understand the uptake mechanism for various clinical and research applications. The background of kinetic analysis of PET imaging depends on suggestion that the target tissue consists of multiple, homogeneous mixed compartments. The resulting rate constants represent the interactions that occur between these compartments including the simple transport and the chemical reforming. This technique enables to understand the tracer distribution in the target tissue and to have
References
[1]
M. L. Macheda, S. Rogers, and J. D. Best, “Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 202, no. 3, pp. 654–662, 2005.
[2]
C. Plathow and W. A. Weber, “Tumor cell metabolism imaging,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, supplement 6, pp. 43S–63S, 2008.
[3]
E. Sutinen, M. Nurmi, A. Roivainen et al., “Kinetics of [11C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET stydy,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 317–324, 2004.
[4]
K. Glunde and Z. M. Bhujwalla, “Choline kinase alpha in cancer prognosis and treatment,” Lancet Oncology, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 855–857, 2007.
[5]
M. Beheshti, W. Langsteger, and I. Fogelman, “Prostate cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 396–407, 2009.
[6]
A. J. Breeuwsma, J. Pruim, M. M. Jongen et al., “In vivo uptake of [11C]choline does not correlate with cell proliferation in human prostate cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 668–673, 2005.
[7]
Q. H. Zheng, T. A. Gardner, S. Raikwar et al., “[11C]Choline as a PET biomarker for assessment of prostate cancer tumor models,” Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 2887–2893, 2004.
[8]
L. G. Strauss, L. Pan, C. Cheng, U. Haberkorn, and A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, “Shortened acquisition protocols for the quantitative assessment of the 2-tissue-compartment model using dynamic PET/CT18F-FDG studies,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 379–385, 2011.
[9]
T. Ohtake, N. Kosaka, T. Watanabe et al., “Noninvasive method to obtain input function for measuring tissue glucose utilization of thoracic and abdominal organs,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1432–1438, 1991.
[10]
C. Burger and A. Buck, “Requirements and implementation of a flexible kinetic modeling tool,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1818–1823, 1997.
[11]
O. C. Hutchinson, D. R. Collingridge, H. Barthel, P. M. Price, and E. O. Aboagye, “Pharmacokinetics of radiolabelled anticancer drugs for positron emission tomography,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 917–929, 2003.
[12]
A. M. Spence, M. Muzi, D. A. Mankoff et al., “18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1653–1659, 2004.
[13]
N. Kawai, Y. Nishiyama, K. Miyake, T. Tamiya, and S. Nagao, “Evaluation of tumor FDG transport and metabolism in primary central nervous system lymphoma using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) kinetic analysis,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 685–690, 2005.
[14]
Y. Nishiyama, Y. Yamamoto, T. Monden et al., “Diagnostic value of kinetic analysis using dynamic FDG PET in immunocompetent patients with primary CNS lymphoma,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 78–86, 2007.
[15]
H. Sch？der and H. W. D. Yeung, “Positron emission imaging of head and neck cancer, including thyroid carcinoma,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 180–197, 2004.
[16]
B. Huang, P.-L. Khong, D. L.-W. Kwong, B. Hung, C.-S. Wong, and C.-Y. O. Wong, “Dynamic PET-CT studies for characterizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma metabolism: comparison of analytical methods,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 191–197, 2012.
[17]
Y. Anzai, S. Minoshima, G. T. Wolf, and R. L. Wahl, “Head and neck cancer: detection of recurrence with three-dimensional principal components analysis at dynamic FDG PET,” Radiology, vol. 212, no. 1, pp. 285–290, 1999.
[18]
B. Huang, T. Chan, W. K. S. Chan, and P.-L. Khong, “Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: investigation of intratumoral heterogeneity with FDG PET/CT,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 169–174, 2012.
[19]
H. O. Peitgen, H. Juergens, and D. Saupe, Chaos and Fractals, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1st edition, 1992.
[20]
M. Kleen, O. Habler, B. Zwissler, and K. Messmer, “Programs for assessment of spatial heterogeneity of regional organ blood flow,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 51–57, 1998.
[21]
P. Laverman, O. C. Boerman, F. H. M. Corstens, and W. J. G. Oyen, “Fluorinated amino acids for tumour imaging with positron emission tomography,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 681–690, 2002.
[22]
W. A. Weber, H. J. Wester, A. L. Grosu et al., “O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine and L-[methyl-11C]methionine uptake in brain tumours: initial results of a comparative study,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 542–549, 2000.
[23]
A. Becherer, G. Karanikas, M. Szabó et al., “Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F]fluorodopa and [11C]methionine,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1561–1567, 2003.
[24]
W. Chen, D. H. S. Silverman, S. Delaloye et al., “18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 904–911, 2006.
[25]
K. Ishiwata, K. Kubota, M. Murakami et al., “Re-evaluation of amino acid PET studies: can the protein synthesis rates in brain and tumor tissues be measured in vivo?” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1936–1943, 1993.
[26]
C. Schiepers, W. Chen, T. Cloughesy, M. Dahlbom, and S. C. Huang, “18F-FDOPA kinetics in brain tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1651–1661, 2007.
[27]
L. M. Cher, C. Murone, N. Lawrentschuk et al., “Correlation of hypoxic cell fraction and angiogenesis with glucose metabolic rate in gliomas using 18F-fluoromisonidazole, 18F-FDG PET, and immunohistochemical studies,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 410–418, 2006.
[28]
D. Thorwarth, S. M. Eschmann, F. Paulsen, and M. Alber, “A kinetic model for dynamic [18F]-Fmiso PET data to analyse tumour hypoxia,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2209–2224, 2005.
[29]
D. Thorwarth, S. M. Eschmann, J. Scheiderbauer, F. Paulsen, and M. Alber, “Kinetic analysis of dynamic 18F-fluoromisonidazole PET correlates with radiation treatment outcome in head-and-neck cancer,” BMC Cancer, vol. 5, article 152, 2005.
[30]
K. Shi, M. Souvatzoglou, S. T. Astner et al., “Quantitative assessment of hypoxia kinetic models by a cross-study of dynamic 18F-FAZA and 15O-H2O in patients with head and neck tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1386–1394, 2010.
[31]
Y. T. Hong, J. S. Beech, R. Smith, J. C. Baron, and T. D. Fryer, “Parametric mapping of 18 Ffluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography using basis functions,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 648–657, 2011.
[32]
W. Wang, N. Y. Lee, J. C. Georgi et al., “Pharmacokinetic analysis of hypoxia 18F-fluoromisonidazole dynamic PET in head and neck cancer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 37–45, 2010.
[33]
M. Henze, J. Schuhmacher, P. Hipp et al., “PET imaging of somatostatin receptors using [68GA]DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-Octreotide: first results in patients with meningiomas,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1053–1056, 2001.
[34]
M. Henze, A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, S. Milker-Zabel et al., “Characterization of 68Ga-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr 3-octreotide kinetics in patients with meningiomas,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 763–769, 2005.
[35]
A. H. Jacobs, A. Thomas, L. W. Kracht et al., “18F-fluoro-L-thymidine and 11C-methylmethionine as markers of increased transport and proliferation in brain tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1948–1958, 2005.
[36]
M. Muzi, A. M. Spence, F. O'Sullivan et al., “Kinetic analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine in patients with gliomas,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1612–1621, 2006.
[37]
C. Schiepers, W. Chen, M. Dahlbom, T. Cloughesy, C. K. Hoh, and S. C. Huang, “18F-fluorothymidine kinetics of malignant brain tumors,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1003–1011, 2007.
[38]
M. S. Bradbury, D. Hambardzumyan, P. B. Zanzonico et al., “Dynamic small-animal PET imaging of tumor proliferation with 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine in a genetically engineered mouse model of high-grade gliomas,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 422–429, 2008.
[39]
C. Schiepers, M. Dahlbom, W. Chen et al., “Kinetics of -deoxy-3？-18F-fluorothymidine during treatment monitoring of recurrent high-grade glioma,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 720–727, 2010.
[40]
M. Wardak, C. Schiepers, M. Dahlbom et al., “Discriminant analysis of 18F-fluorothymidine kinetic parameters to predict survival in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 6553–6562, 2011.
[41]
T. Tsuchida, Y. Demura, M. Sasaki et al., “Differentiation of histological subtypes in lung cancer with 18F-FDG-PET 3-point imaging and kinetic analysis,” Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 224–227, 2011.
[42]
T. Torizuka, K. R. Zasadny, B. Recker, and R. L. Wahl, “Untreated primary lung and breast cancers: correlation between F-18 FDG kinetic rate constants and findings of in vitro studies,” Radiology, vol. 207, no. 3, pp. 767–774, 1998.
[43]
C. Juhász, X. Lu, M. S. Jahania et al., “Quantification of tryptophan transport and metabolism in lung tumors using PET,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 356–363, 2009.
[44]
M. Muzi, H. Vesselle, J. R. Grierson et al., “Kinetic analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine PET studies: validation studies in patients with lung cancer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 274–282, 2005.
[45]
A. A. M. Van Der Veldt, M. Lubberink, H. N. Greuter et al., “Absolute quantification of [11C]docetaxel kinetics in lung cancer patients using positron emission tomography,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 14, pp. 4814–4824, 2011.
[46]
J. Trojan, O. Schroeder, J. Raedle et al., “Fluorine-18 FDG positron emission tomography for imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 94, no. 11, pp. 3314–3319, 1999.
[47]
S. Okazumi, K. Isono, K. Enomoto et al., “Evaluation of liver tumors using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET: characterization of tumor and assessment of effect of treatment,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 333–339, 1992.
[48]
Y. Choi, R. A. Hawkins, S. C. Huang et al., “Evaluation of the effect of glucose ingestion and kinetic model configurations of FDG in the normal liver,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 818–823, 1994.
[49]
C. Messa, Y. Choi, C. K. Hoh et al., “Quantification of glucose utilization in liver metastases: parametric imaging of FDG uptake with PET,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 684–689, 1992.
[50]
S. Chen, C. Ho, D. Feng, and Z. Chi, “Tracer kinetic modeling of 11C-acetate applied in the liver with positron emission tomography,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 426–432, 2004.
[51]
S. Chen and D. Feng, “Noninvasive quantification of the differential portal and arterial contribution to the liver blood supply front PET measurements using the 11C-acetate kinetic model,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1579–1585, 2004.
[52]
L. G. Strauss, S. Klippel, L. Pan, K. Sch？nleben, U. Haberkorn, and A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, “Assessment of quantitative FDG PET data in primary colorectal tumours: which parameters are important with respect to tumour detection?” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 868–877, 2007.
[53]
L. G. Strauss, D. Koczan, S. Klippel et al., “Impact of angiogenesis-related gene expression on the tracer kinetics of 18F-FDG in colorectal tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1238–1244, 2008.
[54]
L. G. Strauss, D. Koczan, S. Klippel et al., “Impact of cell-proliferation-associated gene expression on 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) kinetics as measured by dynamic positron emission tomography (dPET) in Colorectal Tumors,” Molecular Imaging and Biology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1290–1300, 2011.
[55]
J. Buijsen, J. Van Den Bogaard, M. H. M. Janssen et al., “FDG-PET provides the best correlation with the tumor specimen compared to MRI and CT in rectal cancer,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 270–276, 2011.
[56]
E. C. Ford, P. E. Kinahan, L. Hanlon et al., “Tumor delineation using PET in head and neck cancers: threshold contouring and lesion volumes,” Medical Physics, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 4280–4288, 2006.
[57]
M. H. M. Janssen, H. J. W. L. Aerts, M. C. ？llers et al., “Tumor delineation based on time-activity curve differences assessed with dynamic fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in rectal cancer patients,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 456–465, 2009.
[58]
J. R. Bading, P. B. Yoo, J. D. Fissekis, M. M. Alauddin, D. Z. D'Argenio, and P. S. Conti, “Kinetic modeling of 5-fluorouracil anabolism in colorectal adenocarcinoma: a positron emission tomography study in rats,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 13, pp. 3667–3674, 2003.
[59]
L. G. Strauss, J. Hoffend, D. Koczan, L. Pan, U. Haberkorn, and A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, “Early effects of FOLFOX treatment of colorectal tumour in an animal model: assessment of changes in gene expression and FDG kinetics,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1226–1234, 2009.
[60]
A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, and J. Rudi, “PET-FDG as predictor of therapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma,” Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2003.
[61]
A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, C. Burger et al., “Prognostic aspects of 18F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1480–1487, 2004.
[62]
M. Schulte, D. Brecht-Krauss, B. Heymer et al., “Grading of tumors and tumorlike lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1695–1701, 2000.
[63]
A. C. Kole, O. E. Nieweg, H. J. Hoekstra, J. R. Van Horn, H. S. Koops, and W. Vaalburg, “Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose assessment of glucose metabolism in bone tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 810–815, 1998.
[64]
H. Wu, A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, T. O. Heichel et al., “Quantitative evaluation of skeletal tumours with dynamic FDG PET: SUV in comparison to Patlak analysis,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 704–710, 2001.
[65]
R. Tian, M. Su, Y. Tian et al., “Dual-time point PET/CT with F-18 FDG for the differentiation of malignant and benign bone lesions,” Skeletal Radiology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 451–458, 2009.
[66]
A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, T. Heichel et al., “The role of quantitative 18F-FDG PET studies for the differentiation of malignant and benign bone lesions,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 510–518, 2002.
[67]
L. G. Strauss, A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, D. Koczan et al., “18F-FDG kinetics and gene expression in giant cell tumors,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1528–1535, 2004.
[68]
Y. Kawakami, T. Kunisada, S. Sugihara et al., “New approach for assessing vascular distribution within bone tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 133, no. 10, pp. 697–703, 2007.
[69]
A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, M. Schwarzbach et al., “Dynamic PET 18F-FDG studies in patients with primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcomas: impact on diagnosis and correlation with grading,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 713–720, 2001.
[70]
S. Okazumi, A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, M. H. M. Schwarzbach, and L. G. Strauss, “Quantitative, dynamic 18F-FDG-PET for the evaluation of soft tissue sarcomas: relation to differential diagnosis, tumor grading and prediction of prognosis,” Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 223–307, 2009.
[71]
A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, G. Egerer et al., “Impact of dynamic 18F-FDG PET on the early prediction of therapy outcome in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a feasibility study,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 551–558, 2010.
[72]
V. Michel, Z. Yuan, S. Ramsubir, and M. Bakovic, “Choline transport for phospholipid synthesis,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 231, no. 5, pp. 490–504, 2006.
[73]
A. Bansal, W. Shuyan, T. Hara, R. A. Harris, and T. R. DeGrado, “Biodisposition and metabolism of [18F]fluorocholine in 9L glioma cells and 9L glioma-bearing fisher rats,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1192–1203, 2008.
[74]
G. Henriksen, M. Herz, A. Hauser, M. Schwaiger, and H. J. Wester, “Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of the choline transport tracer deshydroxy-[18F]fluorocholine ([18F]dOC),” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 851–858, 2004.
[75]
P. Shreve, P. C. Chiao, H. D. Humes, M. Schwaiger, and M. D. Gross, “Carbon-11-acetate PET imaging in renal disease,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1595–1601, 1995.
[76]
J. Kotzerke, B. G. Volkmer, B. Neumaier, J. E. Gschwend, R. E. Hautmann, and S. N. Reske, “Carbon-11 acetate positron emission tomography can detect local recurrence of prostate cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1380–1384, 2002.
[77]
A. L. Vavere, S. J. Kridel, F. B. Wheeler, and J. S. Lewis, “1-11C-acetate as a PET radiopharmaceutical for imaging fatty acid synthase expression in prostate cancer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 327–334, 2008.
[78]
C. Schiepers, C. K. Hoh, J. Nuyts et al., “1-11C-acetate kinetics of prostate cancer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 206–215, 2008.
