Next Article in Journal
Reduction of Specular Reflection Based on Linear Polarization Control for Fluorescence-Induced Diagnostic Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
SNP rs2920280 in PSCA Is Associated with Susceptibility to Gastric Mucosal Atrophy and Is a Promising Biomarker in Japanese Individuals with Helicobacter pylori Infection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Image Quantification for TSPO PET with a Novel Image-Derived Input Function Method
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Editorial on Special Issue “Quantitative PET and SPECT”

by
Floris H. P. van Velden
1,* and
Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei
1,2
1
Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
2
Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(8), 1989; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081989
Submission received: 9 August 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 15 August 2022 / Published: 16 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantitative PET and SPECT)
Since the introduction of personalized (or precision) medicine, where individually tailored treatments are designed to deliver the right treatment to the right patient at the right time, the primary focus of imaging has moved from detection and diagnosis to tissue characterization, determination of prognosis, prediction of treatment efficacy, and measurement of treatment response [1]. Precision (personalized) imaging relies heavily on the use of hybrid imaging technologies and a variety of quantitative imaging biomarkers. The growing number of promising theragnostics, treatment strategies that combine radiolabeled therapeutics with diagnostics, require accurate quantification for pre- and post-treatment dosimetry. Furthermore, quantification is essential in the pharmacokinetic analysis of promising new radiotracers and drugs, and in the assessment of drug resistance. This Special Issue highlights trending research topics of two quantitative imaging tools used in nuclear medicine, positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).
PET is by nature a quantitative imaging tool, relating the time–activity concentration in tissues and the basic functional parameters governing the biological processes being studied. The quantitative accuracy and interpretation of PET images are influenced by many factors, which are summarized in the review of Rogasch and colleagues, emphasizing the need to implement quality control and standardized imaging protocols [2]. In this Special Issue, three research articles address factors influencing quantitative accuracy and/or interpretation of PET images, such as image reconstruction. Based on the evaluation of multiple Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) reconstructions of phantom scans, Rijnsdorp et al. identified the optimal noise penalty factor for BPL reconstruction of clinical 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans in terms of detectability and reproducibility [3]. A second factor impacting the quantitative accuracy of PET is the spatial resolution, which is influenced by, amongst others, the positron range of the imaged isotope. In this Special Issue, Yang developed a convolutional neural network, originally designed to convert magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into pseudo computed tomography (CT) scans, to correct for the positron range in preclinical 68Ga-PET imaging [4]. Third, respiratory motion degrades the quantification accuracy of PET imaging [5] and, when left uncorrected, could thereby impact the evaluation of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) dosimetry. Walker and colleagues showed that post-therapy 90Y SIRT PET/CT imaging, in terms of tumor quantification and dosimetric measures, is improved by quiescent period respiratory motion correction [6].
Recent innovations in SPECT reconstruction techniques have allowed SPECT to move from relative/semi-quantitative measures to absolute quantification [7]. So far, absolute SPECT is only limitedly translated to diagnostic nuclear medicine, requiring proper validations with a ground truth, such as imaging phantoms. The review by De Schepper and colleagues showed that these validations are currently feasible with the use of application-specific phantoms produced by the current state-of-the-art in additive manufacturing or 3D printing [8].
The strength of PET and SPECT is that they permit whole-body molecular imaging in a noninvasive way, evaluating multiple disease sites. In this Special Issue, Iqbal et al. investigated the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET for staging of patients with grade 1–2 estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer and showed that 18F-FDG PET inadequately staged almost 30% of these patients, illustrating the urgent need for new radiotracers to improve the current imaging staging procedures for these patients [9].
Serial scanning allows the measurement of functional changes over time during therapeutic interventions. In this Special Issue, Roef and colleagues determined the repeatability of 68Ga-PSMA lesion uptake in both relapsing and metastatic tumors and showed that a minimum response of 50% seems appropriate in this clinical situation [10], which is higher than 30% recommended by the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors [11]. In this Special Issue, three articles investigated the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imaging. Chen et al. investigated whether the combination of primary tumor and nodal PET parameters can predict survival outcomes in patients with nodal metastatic non-small cell lung cancer without distant metastasis and demonstrated that by using this combination of PET features (in specific a combination of total lesion glycolysis values; TLG) with clinical factors risk stratification can be refined, facilitating tailored therapeutic strategies for these patients [12]. In addition, Kalisvaart and colleagues determined the added prognostic value of PET features in patients with metastases from soft tissue sarcoma, identifying the maximum and peak standardized uptake values as independent prognostic factors for overall survival in these patients [13]. Finally, Hlongwa et al. demonstrated that high whole-body TLG, and metabolic tumor volumes and TLG of the primary tumor were prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with malignant melanoma [14].
Images can no longer be treated strictly as pictures but instead must use innovative approaches based on numerical analysis. Medical images contain much more information hidden in the millions of voxels that cannot be assessed by the human eye. Recent developments in computer science have introduced computational methods that can capture this concealed information, which is studied in the field of radiomics that includes (a variety of) quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiomics have the potential to improve knowledge of tumor biology and, combined with clinical data and other biomarkers, guide clinical management decisions, thereby contributing to precision medicine [15]. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the inclusion of regions of central necrosis during tumor delineation for radiomic analysis. In this Special Issue, Noortman and colleagues showed that central necrosis of tumors on 18F-FDG PET significantly impacts radiomic feature values but did not seem to impact the predictive performance of the radiomics model [16].
Only with a dynamic scan is it possible to follow the kinetics (uptake, retention, clearance) of the radiotracer quantitatively [17]. However, the pharmacokinetic analysis often requires an arterial input function (AIF) that is acquired by an invasive arterial blood sampling procedure. As a noninvasive surrogate to the AIF, Fang et al. developed an image-derived input function using a model-based matrix factorization to measure the volume of distribution that quantifies the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) of 18F-DPA-714 PET in the human brain [18]. In another, more exploratory and noninvasive dynamic PET study to assess the presynaptic dopamine synthesis capacity using 18F-FDOPA in the human brain, Schalbroeck et al. revealed that, among autistic adults, specific autistic traits can be associated with reduced striatal dopamine synthesis capacity [19]. Last but not least, this Special Issue also identifies a potential role for dynamic PET to monitor treatment response in smoldering myeloma using 18F-FDG, as illustrated by a case report by Sachpekidis et al. [20].
In conclusion, the manuscripts published in this Special Issue highlight hot topics on quantitative PET and SPECT, discussing developments in the field of radiomics, the rise of artificial intelligence techniques, and the problems that have to be solved to be able to move towards validated and clinically accepted quantitative imaging biomarkers for precision medicine. We would like to sincerely thank all authors for their contributions and hope that the readers will enjoy reading this Special Issue.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, F.H.P.v.V. and L.-F.d.G.-O.; writing—review and editing, F.H.P.v.V. and L.-F.d.G.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Society of Radiology. Medical imaging in personalised medicine: A white paper of the research committee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2015, 6, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rogasch, J.M.M.; Hofheinz, F.; van Heek, L.; Voltin, C.-A.; Boellaard, R.; Kobe, C. Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rijnsdorp, S.; Roef, M.J.; Arends, A.J. Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yang, C.-C. Compensating Positron Range Effects of Ga-68 in Preclinical PET Imaging by Using Convolutional Neural Network: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Grootjans, W.; Rietbergen, D.D.; van Velden, F.H. Added Value of Respiratory Gating in Positron Emission Tomography for the Clinical Management of Lung Cancer Patients. Semin Nucl. Med. 2022, in press. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Walker, M.D.; Gear, J.I.; Craig, A.J.; McGowan, D.R. Effects of Respiratory Motion on Y-90 PET Dosimetry for SIRT. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Collarino, A.; Pereira Arias-Bouda, L.M.; Valdes Olmos, R.A.; van der Tol, P.; Dibbets-Schneider, P.; de Geus-Oei, L.F.; van Velden, F.H.P. Experimental validation of absolute SPECT/CT quantification for response monitoring in breast cancer. Med. Phys. 2018, 45, 2143–2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. De Schepper, S.; Gnanasegaran, G.; Dickson, J.C.; Van den Wyngaert, T. Absolute Quantification in Diagnostic SPECT/CT: The Phantom Premise. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Iqbal, R.; Mammatas, L.H.; Aras, T.; Vogel, W.V.; van de Brug, T.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; Verheul, H.M.W.; Hoekstra, O.S.; Boellaard, R.; Menke-van der Houven van Oordt, C.W. Diagnostic Performance of [18F]FDG PET in Staging Grade 1–2, Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Roef, M.J.; Rijnsdorp, S.; Brouwer, C.; Wyndaele, D.N.; Arends, A.J. Evaluation of Quantitative Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT Repeatability of Recurrent Prostate Cancer Lesions Using Both OSEM and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithms. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wahl, R.L.; Jacene, H.; Kasamon, Y.; Lodge, M.A. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2009, 50 (Suppl. S1), 122S–150S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chen, Y.-H.; Chu, S.-C.; Wang, L.-Y.; Wang, T.-F.; Lue, K.-H.; Lin, C.-B.; Chang, B.-S.; Liu, D.-W.; Liu, S.-H.; Chan, S.-C. Prognostic Value of Combing Primary Tumor and Nodal Glycolytic–Volumetric Parameters of 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Regional Lymph Node Metastasis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kalisvaart, G.M.; Grootjans, W.; Bovée, J.V.M.G.; Gelderblom, H.; van der Hage, J.A.; van de Sande, M.A.J.; van Velden, F.H.P.; Bloem, J.L.; de Geus-Oei, L.-F. Prognostic Value of Quantitative [18F]FDG-PET Features in Patients with Metastases from Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hlongwa, K.N.; Mokoala, K.M.G.; Matsena-Zingoni, Z.; Vorster, M.; Sathekge, M.M. The Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT Metabolic Parameters in Predicting Overall Survival in Patients Undergoing Restaging for Malignant Melanoma. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Noortman, W.A.; Vriens, D.; Grootjans, W.; Tao, Q.; de Geus-Oei, L.F.; Van Velden, F.H. Nuclear medicine radiomics in precision medicine: Why we can’t do without artificial intelligence. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 64, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Noortman, W.A.; Vriens, D.; Mooij, C.D.Y.; Slump, C.H.; Aarntzen, E.H.; van Berkel, A.; Timmers, H.J.L.M.; Bussink, J.; Meijer, T.W.H.; de Geus-Oei, L.-F.; et al. The Influence of the Exclusion of Central Necrosis on [18F]FDG PET Radiomic Analysis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lammertsma, A.A. Forward to the Past: The Case for Quantitative PET Imaging. J. Nucl. Med. 2017, 58, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fang, Y.-H.D.; McConathy, J.E.; Yacoubian, T.A.; Zhang, Y.; Kennedy, R.E.; Standaert, D.G. Image Quantification for TSPO PET with a Novel Image-Derived Input Function Method. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Schalbroeck, R.; de Geus-Oei, L.-F.; Selten, J.-P.; Yaqub, M.; Schrantee, A.; van Amelsvoort, T.; Booij, J.; van Velden, F.H.P. Cerebral [18F]-FDOPA Uptake in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Its Association with Autistic Traits. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sachpekidis, C.; Türk, M.; Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A. Quantitative, Dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT in Monitoring of Smoldering Myeloma: A Case Report. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

van Velden, F.H.P.; de Geus-Oei, L.-F. Editorial on Special Issue “Quantitative PET and SPECT”. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1989. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081989

AMA Style

van Velden FHP, de Geus-Oei L-F. Editorial on Special Issue “Quantitative PET and SPECT”. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(8):1989. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081989

Chicago/Turabian Style

van Velden, Floris H. P., and Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei. 2022. "Editorial on Special Issue “Quantitative PET and SPECT”" Diagnostics 12, no. 8: 1989. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081989

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop