4.7 Review

Kinetic modeling and parameter estimation of TSPO PET imaging in the human brain

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05248-9

关键词

Translocator protein 18 kDa (TSPO); Positron emission tomography (PET); Kinetic modeling; Inflammation

资金

  1. University of Edinburgh
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health [ZIAMH002852]
  3. Siemens Healthcare Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the challenges associated with the quantification of TSPO PET images in the human brain, with a discussion of different methods and their advantages and drawbacks. Researchers are advised to understand the various quantification methods available and to choose the most appropriate one based on their research needs.
Purpose Translocator protein 18-kDa (TSPO) imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) is widely used in research studies of brain diseases that have a neuro-immune component. Quantification of TSPO PET images, however, is associated with several challenges, such as the lack of a reference region, a genetic polymorphism affecting the affinity of the ligand for TSPO, and a strong TSPO signal in the endothelium of the brain vessels. These challenges have created an ongoing debate in the field about which type of quantification is most useful and whether there is an appropriate simplified model. Methods This review focuses on the quantification of TSPO radioligands in the human brain. The various methods of quantification are summarized, including the gold standard of compartmental modeling with metabolite-corrected input function as well as various alternative models and non-invasive approaches. Their advantages and drawbacks are critically assessed. Results and conclusions Researchers employing quantification methods for TSPO should understand the advantages and limitations associated with each method. Suggestions are given to help researchers choose between these viable alternative methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据