title: Comparison between kinetic modelling and graphical analysis for the quantification of [18F]fluoromethylcholine uptake in mice.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Until now, no kinetic model was described for the oncologic tracer [18F]fluoromethylcholine ([18F]FCho), so it was aimed to validate a proper model, which is easy to implement and allows tracer quantification in tissues.
  
  
  METHODS
  Based on the metabolic profile, two types of compartmental models were evaluated. One is a 3C2i model, which contains three tissue compartments and two input functions and corrects for possible [18F]fluorobetaine ([18F]FBet) uptake by the tissues. On the other hand, a two-tissue-compartment model (2C1i) was evaluated. Moreover, a comparison, based on intra-observer variability, was made between kinetic modelling and graphical analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Determination of the [18F]FCho-to-[18F]FBet uptake ratios in tissues and evaluation of the fitting of both kinetic models indicated that corrections for [18F]FBet uptake are not mandatory. In addition, [18F]FCho uptake is well described by the 2C1i model and by graphical analysis by means of the Patlak plot.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Patlak plot is a reliable, precise, and robust method to quantify [18F]FCho uptake independent of scan time or plasma clearance. In addition, it is easily implemented, even under non-equilibrium conditions and without creating additional errors.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Radiopharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Gent University, Harelbekestraat 72, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. dominique.slaets@ugent.be.
authors.forename: Dominique
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Slaets
authors.forename: Filip
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: De Vos
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Nov;37(11):2188-93
references.pmid: 20544193
references.citation: Int J Biomed Comput. 1993 Mar;32(2):95-110
references.pmid: 8449593
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Nov;37(11):2136-45
references.pmid: 20556603
references.citation: Synapse. 1999 Dec 15;34(4):290-304
references.pmid: 10529723
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jun;35(6):1192-203
references.pmid: 18264706
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Jan;27(1):25-32
references.pmid: 10654143
references.citation: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1966 May;8(3):429-37
references.pmid: 5962996
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52 Suppl 2:93S-100S
references.pmid: 22144561
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2004 Sep;45(9):1583-90
references.pmid: 15347728
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2007 Jul;48(7):1197-206
references.pmid: 17574990
references.citation: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1983 Mar;3(1):1-7
references.pmid: 6822610
references.citation: Nat Rev Cancer. 2011 Nov 17;11(12):835-48
references.pmid: 22089420
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2010 Jan;51(1):130-8
references.pmid: 20008981
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jun;35(6):1065-73
references.pmid: 18200444
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jan;35(1):9-17
references.pmid: 17828534
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Oct;37(10):1861-8
references.pmid: 20512572
references.citation: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985 Dec;5(4):584-90
references.pmid: 4055928
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1998 Jun;39(6):1043-55
references.pmid: 9627342
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2008 Feb;49(2):206-15
references.pmid: 18199613
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Feb;46(2):371-80
references.pmid: 15695799
references.citation: Mol Imaging Biol. 2012 Apr;14(2):131-46
references.pmid: 21842339