TY - JOUR
T1 - A new framework for metabolic connectivity mapping using bolus [18F]FDG PET and kinetic modeling
AU - Volpi, Tommaso
AU - Vallini, Giulia
AU - Silvestri, Erica
AU - Francisci, Mattia De
AU - Durbin, Tony
AU - Corbetta, Maurizio
AU - Lee, John J.
AU - Vlassenko, Andrei G.
AU - Goyal, Manu S.
AU - Bertoldo, Alessandra
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Metabolic connectivity (MC) has been previously proposed as the covariation of static [18F]FDG PET images across participants, i.e., across-individual MC (ai-MC). In few cases, MC has been inferred from dynamic [18F]FDG signals, i.e., within-individual MC (wi-MC), as for resting-state fMRI functional connectivity (FC). The validity and interpretability of both approaches is an important open issue. Here we reassess this topic, aiming to 1) develop a novel wi-MC methodology; 2) compare ai-MC maps from standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) vs. [18F]FDG kinetic parameters fully describing the tracer behavior (i.e., Ki, K1, k3); 3) assess MC interpretability in comparison to structural connectivity and FC. We developed a new approach based on Euclidean distance to calculate wi-MC from PET time-activity curves. The across-individual correlation of SUVR, Ki, K1, k3 produced different networks depending on the chosen [18F]FDG parameter (k3 MC vs. SUVR MC, r = 0.44). We found that wi-MC and ai-MC matrices are dissimilar (maximum r = 0.37), and that the match with FC is higher for wi-MC (Dice similarity: 0.47–0.63) than for ai-MC (0.24–0.39). Our analyses demonstrate that calculating individual-level MC from dynamic PET is feasible and yields interpretable matrices that bear similarity to fMRI FC measures.
AB - Metabolic connectivity (MC) has been previously proposed as the covariation of static [18F]FDG PET images across participants, i.e., across-individual MC (ai-MC). In few cases, MC has been inferred from dynamic [18F]FDG signals, i.e., within-individual MC (wi-MC), as for resting-state fMRI functional connectivity (FC). The validity and interpretability of both approaches is an important open issue. Here we reassess this topic, aiming to 1) develop a novel wi-MC methodology; 2) compare ai-MC maps from standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) vs. [18F]FDG kinetic parameters fully describing the tracer behavior (i.e., Ki, K1, k3); 3) assess MC interpretability in comparison to structural connectivity and FC. We developed a new approach based on Euclidean distance to calculate wi-MC from PET time-activity curves. The across-individual correlation of SUVR, Ki, K1, k3 produced different networks depending on the chosen [18F]FDG parameter (k3 MC vs. SUVR MC, r = 0.44). We found that wi-MC and ai-MC matrices are dissimilar (maximum r = 0.37), and that the match with FC is higher for wi-MC (Dice similarity: 0.47–0.63) than for ai-MC (0.24–0.39). Our analyses demonstrate that calculating individual-level MC from dynamic PET is feasible and yields interpretable matrices that bear similarity to fMRI FC measures.
KW - Euclidean similarity
KW - [F]FDG
KW - dynamic PET
KW - individual-level metabolic connectivity
KW - kinetic modeling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164106608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0271678X231184365
DO - 10.1177/0271678X231184365
M3 - Article
C2 - 37377103
AN - SCOPUS:85164106608
SN - 0271-678X
VL - 43
SP - 1905
EP - 1918
JO - Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism
JF - Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism
IS - 11
ER -