Background:
Honhar et al. (PMCID:10993874) reported a method for bias and noise correction in standardized‐uptake value ratios (
SUVR
, simplified outcome), relative to distribution volume ratios (
DVR
, quantitative gold‐standard), without the need for dynamic data outside
SUVR
time‐window. The method performed well for rapidly‐reversible radiotracers, [
18
F]FE‐PE2I and [
11
C]LSN3172176 (i.e., radiotracers kinetics described by 1‐tissue compartment or simplified reference tissue models). Herein, we tested this method on human [
18
F]MK‐6240 PET data.
Methods:
Dynamic [
18
F]MK‐6240 PET data (0‐120 min) in 22 human participants (age: 61±18 y, 8 females, 16 cognitively unimpaired controls [HC], 5 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 1 Alzheimer’s disease [AD]) were reanalyzed. Metabolite‐corrected arterial input functions were used to compute regional 2‐tissue compartment model
DVR
values (reference: eroded cerebellar gray matter). Regional
SUVR
(80‐100 min and 90‐110 min) values were corrected as:
SUVRC
=
SUVR
/ [1‐
βref
/
k
2,ref
+
βtarSUVR
/(
R1
k
2,ref
)], where
SUVRC
: corrected
SUVR
,
k
2,ref
: population‐based rate constant for efflux of the radiotracer from reference region, [
βref
,
βtar
]: clearance rates of the radiotracer from the reference and target tissues during
SUVR
time‐window,
R1
=0.75 (population‐averaged value for ratio of target:reference radiotracer delivery rate). The primary outcome measures were the percent bias (%bias) in
SUVR
(and
SUVR
c) relative to
DVR
, and the standard deviation of %bias.
Results:
Across subjects and selected regions of interest (ROIs, Tables 1‐3), the mean %bias was 0.9% for
SUVR
80‐100 min and 1.2% for
SUVR
90‐110 min. The variability in %bias was 13.1% for
SUVR
80‐100 min and 11.9% for
SUVR
90‐110 min. The mean %bias in
SUVR
c across subjects and ROIs was comparable for
SUVR
c 80‐100 min (‐1.3%) and
SUVR
c 90‐110 min (‐0.1%), with similar variability (∼11%) for
SUVR
c 80‐100 min and
SUVR
c 90‐110 min. Regional measures for (averaged across subjects) are listed in Tables 1‐2. Similar performance metrics were observed for a subcohort analysis of 5 high‐binding individuals with highest average regional
DVR
values (1 AD,3 MCI,1 HC).
Conclusions:
[
18
F]MK‐6240
SUVR
in this cohort was already minimally biased;
SUVR
c did not significantly decrease the variability in
SUVR
bias. This
SUVR
correction method might not be beneficial for radiotracers that deviate considerably from its assumption of 1‐tissue compartment model kinetics.