4.0 Article

Test-retest stability of cerebral mGluR5 quantification using [11C]ABP688 and positron emission tomography in rats

期刊

SYNAPSE
卷 66, 期 6, 页码 552-560

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/syn.21542

关键词

positron emission tomography; test-retest; kinetic modeling; [11C]ABP688

资金

  1. Heinrich Hertz Foundation of the Ministry of Science and Technology
  2. North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany
  3. Alzheimer's Association [NIRG-08-92090]
  4. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ)
  5. Chercheur Burcier award
  6. Aisenstadt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the reproducibility of the quantification of metabotropic glutamate receptor type 5 (mGluR5) densities in rats using the PET radiotracer [11C]ABP688 and pharmacokinetic models that are based on an input function, which is derived from a reference tissue. Seven rats underwent dynamic PET scans (60 min) after bolus injection of [11C]ABP688. Kinetic analyses included: binding potential (BPND) determined by calculating (a) the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) and (b) its two-steps simplified version (SRTM2); (c) multilinear reference tissue model (MRTM) and (d) its 2-parameter version (MRTM2); (e) noninvasive graphical analysis (NIGA). Parametric images were generated representing BPND by the MRTM2 model. BPND determinations were reproducible with low to acceptable variability ranging from 5 to 10% and reproducibility scores (intraclass correlation coefficient) between 0.51 and 0.88. The pharmacokinetic model that showed lowest overall variability was the SRTM. In contrast, the use of the NIGA was associated with significantly lower reproducibility scores. Comparison of parametric images revealed no significant bias between test and retest measurements and is therefore suitable to compare groups at voxel levels. In conclusion, our results suggest that noninvasive quantification of [11C]ABP688 imaging is reproducible and reliable for PET studies of the cerebral mGluR5 in rats. Synapse, 2012. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.0
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