Total-Body Multiparametric PET Quantification of 18F-FDG Delivery and Metabolism in the Study of COVID-19 Recovery

Yiran Wang, Lorenzo Nardo, Benjamin A. Spencer, Yasser G. Abdelhafez, Elizabeth J. Li, Negar Omidvari, Abhijit J. Chaudhari, Ramsey D. Badawi, Terry Jones, Simon R. Cherry, Guobao Wang
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.26.23287673

ABSTRACT

Conventional whole-body 18F-FDG PET imaging provides a semi-quantitative evaluation of overall glucose metabolism without gaining insight into the specific transport and metabolic steps. Here we demonstrate the ability of total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET to quantitatively evaluate glucose metabolism using macroparametric quantification and assess specific glucose delivery and phosphorylation processes using microparametric quantification for studying recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods The study included thirteen healthy subjects and twelve recovering COVID-19 subjects within eight weeks of confirmed diagnosis. Each subject had a dynamic 18F-FDG scan on the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT system for one hour. Semiquantitative standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV ratio relative to blood (SUVR) were calculated for regions of interest (ROIs) in different organs to measure glucose utilization. Tracer kinetic modeling was performed to quantify microparametric rate constants K1 and k3 that characterize 18F-FDG blood-to-tissue delivery and intracellular phosphorylation, respectively, and a macroparameter Ki that represents 18F-FDG net influx rate. Statistical tests were performed to examine differences between the healthy controls and recovering COVID-19 subjects. Impact of COVID-19 vaccination was investigated. We further generated parametric images to confirm the ROI-based analysis.

Results We detected no significant difference in lung SUV but significantly higher lung SUVR and Ki in the recovering COVID-19 subjects, indicating an improved sensitivity of kinetic quantification for detecting the difference in glucose metabolism. A significant difference was also observed in the lungs with the phosphorylation rate k3, but not with the delivery rate K1, which suggests it is glucose phosphorylation, not glucose delivery, that drives the observed difference of glucose metabolism in the lungs. Meanwhile, there was no or little difference in bone marrow metabolism measured with SUV, SUVR and Ki, but a significant increase in bone-marrow 18F-FDG delivery rate K1 in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.05), revealing a difference of glucose delivery in this immune-related organ. The observed differences were lower or similar in vaccinated COVID-19 subjects as compared to unvaccinated ones. The organ ROI-based findings were further supported by parametric images.

Conclusions Higher lung glucose metabolism and bone-marrow glucose delivery were observed with total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET in recovering COVID-19 subjects as compared to healthy subjects, which suggests continued inflammation due to COVID-19 during the early stages of recovery. Total-body multiparametric PET of 18F-FDG delivery and metabolism can provide a more sensitive tool and more insights than conventional static whole-body 18F-FDG imaging to evaluate metabolic changes in systemic diseases such as COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION

Positron emission tomography (PET) with the radiotracer 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is a non-invasive in vivo molecular imaging technique that reflects glucose metabolism. Conventional whole-body static 18F-FDG PET imaging can provide an overall evaluation of glucose utilization throughout the body, but it mixes the specific glucose transport and metabolic steps. Identification and quantification of these specific processes separately require a fast dynamic scanning protocol, which is however limited to a single organ or a confined region by a conventional short axial field-of-view PET scanner. The advent of total-body PET/CT systems such as uEXPLORER (1) and other long-axial field-of-view PET scanners (2,3) has brought new opportunities for total-body dynamic PET imaging with increased detection sensitivity and simultaneous dynamic imaging of multiple organs (4). Combined with tracer kinetic modeling (5), total-body dynamic 18F-FDG-PET enables a multiparametric quantification method (6) that allows quantitative measurement of not only overall glucose utilization, but also the microparametric rates of glucose delivery and phosphorylation (7) over the entire body.

Though mostly used in oncology, 18F-FDG PET also has the potential for characterizing inflammatory diseases such as vasculitis (8), hepatitis (9), osteomyelitis (10), and recently Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (11). COVID-19 primarily attacks the respiratory system, leading to conditions varying from mild manifestations to high-mortality acute symptoms (12). Meanwhile, it can affect multiple organs associated with different body systems, including the nervous (13), cardiovascular (14), and immune systems (15). In addition, a variety of prolonged effects of COVID-19 have been reported (16–19). However, investigations of the whole-body consequences and prolonged effects from COVID-19 are limited, partially due to the lack of an approach for in-depth total-body evaluation.

In this paper, we conducted a quantitative evaluation of glucose utilization in multiple organs of healthy and recovering COVID-19 subjects using total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET imaging. We analyzed the overall glucose metabolism, and more subtly, the blood-to-tissue glucose delivery and glucose phosphorylation to gain further insight into the metabolic differences induced by COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Participants and Data Acquisition

With Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent at the University of California Davis Health, the study includes a cohort of thirteen healthy subjects (all scanned prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic) and twelve COVID-19 subjects. These COVID-19 subjects had mild to moderate symptoms and none of them was hospitalized. Each subject had a total-body one-hour 18F-FDG dynamic scan on the 2-meter long uEXPLORER PET/CT system (20,21). The PET/CT scans for the COVID-19 subjects were performed within eight weeks of confirmed diagnosis. All COVID-19 subjects tested negative for COVID-19 least two weeks prior to the PET scan. The subjects were injected with 333 ± 45 MBq 18F-FDG intravenously immediately after initiating list-mode data acquisition. A total-body ultralow-dose CT scan (140 kVp, 5 mAs) was performed before the PET scan for attenuation correction. Dynamic PET data were reconstructed into 29 frames (6 × 10 s,2 × 30 s,6 × 60 s,5 × 120 s,4 × 180 s,6 × 300 s) with a voxel size of 4 × 4 × 4 mm3 using the vendor-provided ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with four iterations and 20 subsets (20).

Total-body Kinetic Modeling

Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in various organs and tissues (e.g., brain, liver, lungs, spleen, bone marrow) throughout the entire body on the dynamic images of each subject (see details of ROI placement in Supplemental Table 1). Time-activity curves (TACs) were then extracted from the organ ROIs. In addition, ROI placement and TAC extraction were also done for the ascending aorta (AA) and right ventricle (RV) to acquire image-derived input functions (IDIFs).

View this table:
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 1.

ROI Placement in Different Organs/Tissues for Kinetic Modelling

A two-tissue irreversible (2Ti) compartmental model was used for modeling the dynamic 18F-FDG data (6) (Supplemental Fig. 1) following a set of differential equations: Embedded Image where Cp(t), Cf(t), and Cm(t) are the 18F-FDG concentrations in the blood plasma, tissue free-state 18F-FDG, and tissue phosphorylated 18F-FDG, respectively. K1 (mL/min/cm3) and k2 (min-1) represent the blood-to-tissue and the tissue-to-blood 18F-FDG delivery rate, respectively; k3 (min-1) is the 18F-FDG phosphorylation rate. This irreversible model assumes negligible 18F-FDG dephosphorylation, i.e., the 18F-FDG dephosphorylation rate k4 (min-1) is zero.

SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 1.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 1.

The tracer kinetics of 18F-FDG is described by a two-tissue irreversible (2Ti) compartmental model.

The activity that can be directly measured with PET is modeled as a combination of the concentrations in blood and tissue, Embedded Image where vb is the blood volume fraction and Cwb(t) is the 18F-FDG concentration in the whole blood that is approximated by Cp(t). A time delay correction was applied to account for the time difference from where the IDIF is extracted to the arrival in a tissue (6), and different image-derived input functions were used as appropriate for the kinetic modeling of different organs. The IDIF for most organs is the ascending aorta TAC: Embedded Image except for the lungs for which the IDIF is the right ventricle TAC: Embedded Image where td (s) is the time delay correction parameter.

All the kinetic parameters including the time delay were jointly estimated through a non-linear least-square fitting method (6) with a weighting factor that considers the time length of each frame and nuclear decay (22).

Macroparametric and Microparametric Quantification

The macro-parameter Ki, denoting 18F-FDG net influx rate, is commonly used to characterize overall glucose metabolism and is calculated by: Embedded Image We also applied semi-quantitative standardized uptake value (SUV) (23) and SUV ratio relative to blood (SUVR) (24) using the last dynamic frame (55-60 min) to evaluate the overall glucose metabolism. RV was used for the lung SUVR calculation, and AA was used for the SUVR calculation of all other organs.

In addition to the measures of overall glucose metabolism by SUV, SUVR, and Ki, we also used the microparameters of the 2Ti kinetic model, specifically the 18F-FDG delivery rate K1 and phosphorylation rate k3, to gain insight into the individual molecular processes of glucose utilization. The ability of this microparametric quantification is a feature that distinguishes compartmental modeling from whole-body static imaging or whole-body dynamic imaging with a simplified graphical analysis method (e.g., the Patlak plot).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis in this study was performed using an unpaired, two-tailed T test and the Mann-Whitney U test on SUV, SUVR and parametric PET metrics to investigate metabolic differences in the recovering COVID-19 subjects compared to the healthy controls. In addition, the tests were performed on lung CT ROIs (Supplemental Table 1) for complementary information. Effect of vaccination was also investigated when appropriate using the statistical tests between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated COVID-19 recovering groups to study the potential influence of vaccination (25,26). All statistical data analyses were conducted using MATLAB (Mathworks, MA). P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

For organs that demonstrated a difference in the glucose metabolism, the Pearson correlation analysis between Ki and micro-parameters K1, k2, and k3 was also conducted to further understand their association.

Parametric Imaging of COVID-19

In addition to the ROI-based analysis, voxel-wise parametric images were generated for the healthy and the recovering COVID-19 subjects using the 2Ti compartmental model. Kernel smoothing was applied to both the dynamic images and parametric images for noise reduction (6). To make the comparison of parametric images more focused on organs of interest, masking was used to visualize individual organs or tissues (e.g., lung or bone marrow) within the parametric images for inter-subject comparisons.

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

A summary of patient characteristics is provided in Supplemental Table 2. The healthy subjects include six males and seven females with age 49 ± 15 y and weight 82 ± 18 kg. The COVID-19 subjects include three males, nine females with age 41 ± 10 y and weight 84 ± 25 kg. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in age, weight, body mass index (BMI), blood glucose level, or fasting time before the PET scan using the unpaired T test and the U test. In addition, there was no statistical difference in lung CT values and in the SUV of the input function (neither AA nor RV) between the two groups.

View this table:
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 2.

Information of individual subjects in the healthy controls and recovering COVID-19 subjects

Dynamic Images and TACs

Total-body dynamic 18F-FDG PET images of a representative healthy subject and a recovering COVID-19 subject are shown in Fig. 1A. Fig. 1B shows four examples of the TACs in the form of SUV and SUVR over time. The most notable finding was the increased lung SUVR in the recovering COVID-19 group compared to the healthy group, while the bone marrow SUVR and spleen SUVR of recovering COVID-19 group also tended to be higher.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.

(A) Total-body dynamic 18F-FDG PET images of a healthy subject and a recovering COVID-19 subject. Shown are maximum intensity projections. (B) Averaged TACs (shown as SUV and SUVR) of four organs of interest (lung, pelvic bone marrow, spleen, and gray matter) of the thirteen healthy and the twelve recovering COVID-19 subjects. The averaged values are shown as the solid lines, and the standard deviations are shown as the bands.

Comparison of Overall Glucose Utilization in Multiple Organs

Table 1 summarizes the SUV, SUVR, and Ki of the healthy and the recovering COVID-19 groups along with group comparison results for 11 different organ ROIs. There was no significant difference in lung SUV between the two groups (p > 0.1) (Fig. 2). However, there was a statistically significant increase of ∼120% in lung Ki in the COVID-19 group (p ≈ 0.01). SUVR showed a difference (∼25% increase) but to a lower degree.

View this table:
TABLE 1.

Comparison of the 18F-FDG metabolic metrics SUV, SUVR, and Ki between the healthy subjects and recovering COVID-19 subjects in multiple organs/tissues.

FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.

Comparison of 18F-FDG glucose metabolism in the lung (top) and spleen (bottom) between the healthy and recovering COVID-19 groups using SUV, SUVR (both at 55 - 60 min), and Ki. pT and pU are the p-values of the T test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

Spleen metabolism and bone marrow metabolism also tended to increase, though did not always achieve a statistical significance, as shown in Table 1 and the boxplots in Fig. 2. Ki produced a larger group difference than SUV, while SUVR was comparable to Ki. We did not observe a statistically significant difference with SUV, SUVR, and Ki in other organs (e.g., brain, liver). Based on the above analyses, the lung, bone marrow, and spleen were selected for further study of microparametric quantification.

Microparametric Quantification of the Lungs

Table 2 shows the analysis of microparametric quantification of the lungs. The correlation between each microparameter and lung Ki is also included using all subject data. Neither K1 Nor k2 detected any group difference (p > 0.6). k3 was much higher in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.05), as further shown in Fig. 3A. Also, k3 had the strongest correlation with Ki (r = 0.56, p = 0.0035) among the three microparameters (Fig. 3B), while the correlations of K1 and k2 with Ki were poor (p > 0.25). The findings suggested that increased 18F-FDG phosphorylation (as quantified by k3) might be the main driving factor for the increased lung 18F-FDG metabolism (assessed by Ki) in COVID-19 recovery.

View this table:
TABLE 2.

Healthy vs. recovering COVID-19 comparison of lung micro kinetic parameters K1, k2, and k3 and the correlation between the microparameters and lung 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki.

FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.

Study of lung kinetic parameters in the healthy and the recovering COVID-19 groups. (A) Comparison of 18F-FDG phosphorylation rate k3 between the two groups. (B) Correlation between k3 and 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki among the subjects.

Microparametric Quantification of Bone Marrow

The microparametric quantification results of bone marrow are summarized in Table 3. While bone marrow metabolism did not show a statistical difference between the two groups as measured with SUVR and Ki (Table 1), bone-marrow 18F-FDG delivery rate K1 was higher in the COVID-19 subjects, as also shown in Fig. 4. The pelvic bone marrow K1 was ∼20% higher in the COVID-19 group than in the healthy group (p < 0.05) (Table 3). In comparison, no statistical significances were observed in k3. In contrast to the results in the lungs, here the bone marrow microparameters K1, k2, and k3 all had strong correlations with Ki with p < 0.05, though the correlation of K1 with Ki remained weaker (Table 3). Similar results were also found in the spine bone marrow.

View this table:
TABLE 3.

Healthy vs. recovering COVID-19 comparison of bone marrow micro kinetic parameters K1, k2, and k3 and the correlation between the microparameters and bone marrow 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki.

FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.

Comparison of 18F-FDG delivery rate K1 of the (A) spine bone marrow and (B) pelvic bone marrow between the healthy and the recovering COVID-19 groups.

Microparametric Quantification of the Spleen

Table 4 shows the microparametric quantification results for the spleen. k3 was ∼45% higher in the COVID-19 group (Fig. 5A), while K1 and k1 did not show a significant group difference (p > 0.3). k3 correlated the most strongly with Ki (r = 0.98, p < 0.0001) among the three microparameters (Fig. 5B), indicating that the increased trend in spleen metabolism (represented by SUVR and Ki) was dominated by the increased 18F-FDG phosphorylation. Overall, the observed changes in the spleen were similar to that of the lungs but with a weaker statistical significance.

View this table:
TABLE 4.

Healthy vs. recovering COVID-19 comparison of spleen microparameters K1, k2, and k3 and the correlation between the microparameters and spleen 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki.

FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 5.

Study of microparametric quantification in the spleen. (A) Comparison of k3 between the two groups. (B) Correlation between k3 and Ki among the subjects.

Effect of Vaccination

Among the COVID-19 subjects, five were unvaccinated and seven were vaccinated prior to their PET scans (Supplemental Table 2). There was no statistical difference in age, BMI, blood sugar level between the unvaccinated and vaccinated COVID-19 subjects (p > 0.2). Lung Ki was significantly higher in unvaccinated COVID-19 subjects (0.00114±0.00029 mL/min/cm3) as compared to healthy subjects (0.00038±0.00033 mL/min/cm3) with p < 0.001, as shown in Fig. 6A. Lung Ki was reduced in vaccinated COVID-19 subjects (0.00062±0.00042 mL/min/cm3) but still slightly higher than in healthy controls.

FIGURE 6.
FIGURE 6.

Evaluation of unvaccinated and vaccinated COVID-19 subjects as compared to healthy subjects. (A) Lung 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki. (B) Spine bone-marrow 18F-FDG delivery rate K1. P values were calculated using the unpaired T test.

Spine bone-marrow K1 of both unvaccinated and vaccinated COVID-19 subjects were higher than that of healthy subjects (Fig. 6B). But it did not differ significantly between unvaccinated and vaccinated COVID-19 subjects. No statistical effect of vaccination was noted in other organs of recovering COVID-19 subjects.

Parametric Imaging of Recovering COVID-19

Fig. 7 shows the parametric images of the lungs and bone marrow from healthy subjects and COVID-19 subjects. The lung images of SUVR, Ki and k3 showed enhanced contrast between the healthy and the recovering COVID-19 compared to SUV (Fig. 7A) through visual inspection, supporting the ROI-based analyses. The spine bone marrow (Fig. 7B) and pelvic bone marrow (Supplemental Fig. 2A) images of Ki and K1 showed increased contrast between the two subjects than SUV. The SUVR and Ki images of the spleen also tended to have higher contrast as compared to the SUV images (Supplemental Fig. 2B). These observations are consistent with the ROI-based findings.

SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 2.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 2.

Parametric images of example healthy subjects and COVID-19 subjects. (A) Pelvic bone-marrow images of 18F-FDG SUV, SUVR, and parametric images of 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki, and blood-to-tissue 18F-FDG delivery rate K1. (B) Spleen 18F-FDG SUV, SUVR, and parametric images of 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki. The masked PET images are overlaid on the CT images.

FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 7.

Parametric images of example healthy subjects and COVID-19 subjects. (A) Lung CT, 18F-FDG SUV, SUVR, and parametric images of 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki, and 18F-FDG phosphorylation rate k3. The coronal slices are selected as the mid of trachea carina. (B) Spine bone marrow images of 18F-FDG SUV, SUVR, and parametric images 18F-FDG net influx rate Ki, and blood-to-tissue 18F-FDG delivery rate K1. The PET images are masked for the bone marrow region and overlaid on the CT images.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we evaluated the metabolic differences in multiple organs between recovering COVID-19 subjects and healthy controls using total-body dynamic 18F-FDG PET combined with kinetic modeling. We detected increased metabolism using Ki in the lung, while SUV gave no group differentiation (Table 1 and Fig. 2). The inability of SUV to distinguish the groups is likely due to its semi-quantitative nature and being susceptible to confounding factors (23). SUVR showed a larger group difference than SUV but did not outperform Ki. These results suggest the power of kinetic quantification for assessing glucose metabolism. The increased lung metabolism (measured by Ki and SUVR) in the COVID-19 group may indicate continued inflammation during the early stages of recovery. Previous dynamic lung 18F-FDG PET studies have associated increased lung Ki with pulmonary inflammation in multiple conditions, such as acute lung injury (27) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (28). Meanwhile, prolonged lung inflammation caused by COVID-19 has also been reported, which can last more than 60 days after infection even for asymptomatic and patients with mild cases (29,30).

Another advantage of compartmental modeling is microparametric quantification. According to the analysis in the lungs, 18F-FDG phosphorylation rate k3 is the parameter that was responsible for the healthy vs. COVID-19 group difference in Ki (Fig. 3, Fig. 7A) and correlated best with Ki among different microparameters (Table 2). The result implied that increased 18F-FDG phosphorylation may be the main driving factor for increased lung metabolism during the early stages of recovery from COVID-19, while the glucose delivery rate K1 in the lungs did not differ between COVID-19 and healthy controls (Table 2). These findings are also consistent with previous animal studies that observed k3 increases in lung inflammation and the association between Ki and k3 (27,31).

Bone marrow demonstrated a significant change of K1 in the recovering COVID-19 group as compared to healthy subjects (Fig. 4, Fig. 7B), but no differences were observed with SUV, SUVR or Ki that reflects the overall 18F-FDG metabolism (Table 1). This result further indicates the importance of microparametric quantification. Bone marrow is essential for immunoregulation and is the origin of immune cells (32). Animal studies have reported that bone marrow cells play an important role in the repair of the injured lung during lung inflammation (33,34). Hence, the increased 18F-FDG delivery represented by K1 may be associated with immune system response during COVID-19 recovery. Given that 18F-FDG K1 of liver was also demonstrated to associate with hepatic inflammation in fatty liver disease (9,35), the interplay between K1 and inflammation reaction, and the potential of K1 as a biomarker of disease, are worth more studies to explore its clinical applications.

The spleen tended to have higher metabolism in the COVID-19 group, as represented by Ki or SUVR (Table. 1). This observation is consistent with the splenic 18F-FDG uptake increase reported in previous studies of COVID-19 (36) and other infectious diseases (37). As an immune organ, the spleen plays an important role in the immune response to COVID-19 (38) and the immune response may lead to increased metabolism.

Our study also separated the unvaccinated and vaccinated COVID-19 groups to evaluate the potential effect of vaccination (Fig. 6). The lower lung Ki in the vaccinated group may indicate reduced lung inflammation due to the protection of vaccination. The data also suggest that the observed differences in the lungs and bone marrow between the recovering COVID-19 group and healthy subjects are more likely a direct result of COVID-19, not due to vaccination.

The study has several limitations. The pilot study cohort is relatively small. With an increased sample size, it may be possible to further observe some group differences that were not statistically significant in the current study. Although there is no statistical difference in age, weight, BMI, and blood sugar level between healthy subjects and recovering COVID-19 subjects, the unpaired age and gender can introduce potential risks of biased observation. The study lacks histopathology or clinical laboratory data to elaborate the reason for the differences in 18F-FDG kinetics between the two groups. The statistical analysis in this pilot study was not corrected for possible family-wise error rate as the focus of this work is on comparing parametric metrics with SUV. Confirmation of the physiologic findings from this study will require a larger sample size with an appropriate correction for multiple comparisons.

Our next steps are to use a similar methodology to study the impact of long COVID-19 on individual subjects. The interplay and correlation of tracer kinetics among different organs will be also studied in the future. In addition, the results from this pilot work suggest future study designs should focus more on immune-related metabolic changes, e.g., by tracking macrophage (39) or neutrophil (40) or monitoring serum inflammatory factors.

CONCLUSIONS

With total-body multiparametric PET, increased lung 18F-FDG metabolism (measured by Ki) and increased bone-marrow 18F-FDG delivery (measured by K1) were detected in recovering COVID-19 subjects as compared to healthy subjects. The changes may be associated with continued inflammation and immune response during the early stages of recovery from COVID-19. These findings are otherwise missed or not possible to find if standard SUV measures are used. Total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET can be a more sensitive tool than conventional whole-body 18F-FDG imaging for detecting subtle changes and may be used for studying post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

DISCLOSURE

This research is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants R01 CA206187, R01 DK124803, and R01 AR076088. University of California, Davis has a research agreement and revenue sharing agreement with United Imaging Healthcare. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article exist.

KEY POINTS

QUESTION

Compared to standard whole-body 18F-FDG-PET imaging, is there any benefit from using total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET for studying COVID-19 recovery?

PERTINENT FINDINGS

Higher 18F-FDG net influx and phosphorylation in the lung and higher 18F-FDG blood-to-tissue delivery in bone marrow were detected in recovering COVID-19 subjects compared to healthy subjects, while no statistical difference was detected using SUV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE

Total-body multiparametric 18F-FDG PET may offer a more sensitive tool for quantitative assessment of multi-organ effects in COVID-19 recovery than SUV and may be used to study long COVID-19.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the technologists and staff, particularly Lynda E. Painting, of the EXPLORER Molecular Imaging Center (EMIC), for their assistance in patient consent and data acquisition.

Footnotes

  • Disclaimer: None.

  • Financial support: NIH grants R01 CA206187, R01 DK124803 and R01 AR076088.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS, Moses WW, Price P, Jones T. Total-body imaging: Transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaaf6169.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Pantel AR, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. PennPET Explorer: Human imaging on a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:144–151.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Alberts I, Hünermund J-N, Prenosil G, et al. Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the Biograph Vision Quadra with the Biograph Vision PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2395–2404.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Wang Y, Li E, Cherry SR, Wang G. Total-body PET kinetic modeling and potential opportunities using deep learning. PET Clin. 2021;16:613–625.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Carson RE. Tracer kinetic modeling in PET. In: Positron Emission Tomography. London: Springer; 2005:127–159.
  6. 6.↵
    Wang G, Nardo L, Parikh M, et al. Total-body PET multiparametric imaging of cancer using a voxel-wise strategy of compartmental modeling. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1274–1281.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Sundaram SM, Doughty LA, Sereda MW. Location matters: Hexokinase 1 in glucose metabolism and inflammation. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2022;33:665–667.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Zerizer I, Tan K, Khan S, et al. Role of FDG-PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of vasculitis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:504–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Wang G, Corwin MT, Olson KA, Badawi RD, Sarkar S. Dynamic PET of human liver inflammation: impact of kinetic modeling with optimization-derived dual-blood input function. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63:155004.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Wenter V, Müller J-P, Albert NL, et al. The diagnostic value of [18F]FDG PET for the detection of chronic osteomyelitis and implant-associated infection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:749–761.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Zou S, Zhu X. FDG PET/CT of COVID-19. Radiology. 2020;296:E118–E118.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi Z-L. Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:141–154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Soltani Zangbar H, Gorji A, Ghadiri T. A review on the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 infection: A mechanistic view. Mol Neurobiol. 2021;58:536–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Zaim S, Chong JH, Sankaranarayanan V, Harky A. COVID-19 and multiorgan response. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2020;45:100618.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Yazdanpanah F, Hamblin MR, Rezaei N. The immune system and COVID-19: Friend or foe? Life Sci. 2020;256:117900.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P. Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. BMJ. July 2021:374.
  17. 17.
    Guedj E, Campion JY, Dudouet P, et al. 18F-FDG brain PET hypometabolism in patients with long COVID. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2823–2833.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.
    Sollini M, Morbelli S, Ciccarelli M, et al. Long COVID hallmarks on [18F]FDG-PET/CT: a case-control study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:3187–3197.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Sollini M, Ciccarelli M, Cecconi M, et al. Vasculitis changes in COVID-19 survivors with persistent symptoms: an [18F]FDG-PET/CT study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:1460–1466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2-2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:861–870.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, et al. First Human Imaging Studies with the EXPLORER Total-Body PET Scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:299–303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Thiele F, Buchert R. Evaluation of non-uniform weighting in non-linear regression for pharmacokinetic neuroreceptor modelling. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:179–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–1434.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    van den Hoff J, Oehme L, Schramm G, et al. The PET-derived tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) is superior to tumor SUV as a surrogate parameter of the metabolic rate of FDG. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    McIntosh LJ, Bankier AA, Vijayaraghavan GR, Licho R, Rosen MP. COVID-19 vaccination-related uptake on FDG PET/CT: An emerging dilemma and suggestions for management. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;217:975–983.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Keshavarz P, Yazdanpanah F, Rafiee F, Mizandari M. Lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: Imaging findings review. Academic Radiology. 2021;28:1058–1071.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    de Prost N, Feng Y, Wellman T, et al. 18F-FDG kinetics parameters depend on the mechanism of injury in early experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1871–1877.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Subramanian DR, Jenkins L, Edgar R, Quraishi N, Stockley RA, Parr DG. Assessment of pulmonary neutrophilic inflammation in emphysema by quantitative Positron Emission Tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186:1125–1132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Doykov I, Hällqvist J, Gilmour KC, Grandjean L, Mills K, Heywood WE. ‘The long tail of Covid-19’ - The detection of a prolonged inflammatory response after a SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic and mildly affected patients. F1000Research. 2020:1–9.
  30. 30.↵
    Albano D, Bertagna F, Bertoli M, et al. Incidental findings suggestive of COVID-19 in asymptomatic patients undergoing nuclear medicine procedures in a high-prevalence region. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:632–636.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Wellman TJ, Winkler T, Costa ELV, et al. Effect of local tidal lung strain on inflammation in normal and lipopolysaccharide-exposed sheep. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:e491–e500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Zhao E, Xu H, Wang L, et al. Bone marrow and the control of immunity. Cell Mol Immunol. 2012;9:11–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Rojas M, Xu J, Woods CR, et al. Bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells in repair of the injured lung. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2005;33:145–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Yamada M, Kubo H, Kobayashi S, et al. Bone marrow-derived progenitor cells are important for lung repair after lipopolysaccharide-induced lung injury. J Immunol. 2004;172:1266–1272.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Sarkar S, Corwin MT, Olson KA, et al. Pilot study to diagnose nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with dynamic 18F-FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212:529–537.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Dietz M, Chironi G, Claessens Y-E, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: relationship between inflammation assessed by whole-body FDG PET/CT and short-term clinical outcome. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:260–268.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Liu Y. Clinical significance of diffusely increased splenic uptake on FDG-PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:763–769.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Kaneko N, Kuo H-H, Boucau J, et al. Loss of Bcl-6-expressing T follicular helper cells and germinal centers in COVID-19. Cell. 2020;183:143-157.e13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Kim EJ, Kim S, Seo HS, et al. Novel PET imaging of atherosclerosis with 68 Ga-labeled NOTA-neomannosylated human serum albumin. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1792–1797.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    Antoni G, Lubberink M, Sörensen J, et al. In vivo visualization and quantification of neutrophil elastase in lungs of COVID-19 patients: A first-in-humans PET study with 11C-NES. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:145–148.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Posted March 30, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Total-Body Multiparametric PET Quantification of 18F-FDG Delivery and Metabolism in the Study of COVID-19 Recovery
Yiran Wang, Lorenzo Nardo, Benjamin A. Spencer, Yasser G. Abdelhafez, Elizabeth J. Li, Negar Omidvari, Abhijit J. Chaudhari, Ramsey D. Badawi, Terry Jones, Simon R. Cherry, Guobao Wang
medRxiv 2023.03.26.23287673; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.26.23287673
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area