Download PDF
Der Nuklearmediziner 2007; 30(1): 31-41
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-955216
Molekulare Bildgebung

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der modernen Schnittbildverfahren (CT, MRT, PET) in der molekularen Bildgebung

Potentials and Limits of Modern Tomographic Methods (CT, MR, PET) in Molecular ImagingM. Hentschel1 , D. Paul2 , E. Moser1 , I. Brink1
  • 1Radiologische Universitätsklinik, Abteilung Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
  • 2Radiologische Universitätsklinik, Abteilung Röntgendiagnostik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 March 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit gibt eine Einführung in die Grundlagen der Computertomografie, Magnetresonanztomografie und Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie. Die derzeitigen Möglichkeiten der Methoden hinsichtlich der zeitlichen, Orts- und Kontrastauflösung und der Nachweisempfindlichkeit sowohl in der klinischen Routine als auch für experimentelle Untersuchungen (in vitro, ex vivo) werden vorgestellt. Dabei zeigt sich die CT als die anatomische Referenz-Methode mit fest definierten Kontrastverhältnissen, hoher Ortsauflösung bei geringer Empfindlichkeit (10-2 mol/l) für die funktionelle und molekulare Bildgebung. Die MR ist die anatomische Methode für die Forschung mit variablem Gewebekontrast, physiologischen Bildinformationen, höchster Ortsauflösung und mittlerer Empfindlichkeit (10-3 bis 10-5 mol/l). Die PET ist die Methode mit der höchsten molekularen Empfindlichkeit (10-11-10-12 mol/l), sehr guter Eignung für die molekulare Bildgebung bei allerdings geringer Ortsauflösung.

Abstract

The present survey gives an introduction into the basics of computed tomography, magnetic resonance tomography and positron emission tomography. The current potentials of these methods in relation to their temporal, spatial and contrast resolutions as well as their sensitivities within clinical routine and experimental studies (in vitro, ex vivo) will be presented. Computed tomography constitutes the anatomical reference method with well defined contrast, high spatial resolution but low sensitivity (10-2 mol/l) for functional and molecular imaging. Magnetic resonance tomography represents the anatomical method for research with variable tissue contrast, physiological image information, highest spatial resolution but moderate sensitivity (10-3-10-5 mol/l) for functional and molecular imaging. Positron emission tomography offers good suitability for molecular imaging due to highest sensitivity (10-11-10-12 mol/l). However, the spatial resolution of positron emission tomography is low.

Schlüsselwörter

Computertomografie - Magnetresonanztomografie und Spektroskopie - Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie - molekulare Bildgebung

Key words

computed tomography - magnetic resonance tomography and spectroscopy - positron emission tomography - molecular imaging

Literatur

  • 1 Rudin M, Weissleder R. Molecular imaging in drug discovery and development.  Nature Rev. 2003;  2 123-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Levin C S. Primer on molecular imaging technology.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2005;  32 325-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shaw D. Studies in physical and theoretical chemistry. In: Fourier Transform NMR Spectroscopy. 2nd ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kalender W A. Computed Tomography. Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. 2nd edition. Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kalender W A. X-ray computed tomography.  Phys Med Biol. 2006;  51 R29-R43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Engelke K, Karolczak M, Lutz A, Seibert U, Schaller S, Kalender W. Mikro-CT. Technologie und Applikationen zur Erfassung von Knochenarchitektur.  Radiologe. 1999;  39 203-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harvey C, Dooher A, Morgan J, Blomley M, Dawson P. Imaging of tumour responses by dynamic CT.  Eur J Radiol. 1999;  30 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Massoud T F, Gambir S. Review: Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light.  Genes & Develop. 2003;  17 545-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hermann S, Stegger L, Levkau B, Schober O, Schäfers M. Molekulare Bildgebung mit szintigraphischen Methoden.  Z Med Phys. 2005;  15 147-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leach M O. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in the investigation of cancer at the Royal Marsden hospital and the institute of cancer research.  Phys Med Biol. 2006;  51 R61-R82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mallard J R. Magnetic resonance imaging- the Aberdeen perspective on developments in the early years.  Phys Med Biol. 2006;  51 R45-R60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dilcher L, Venator M, Dilcher S. Kleines Handbuch der Kernspinntomografie. Edwin Ferger, Bergisch Gladbach 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Vlaardingerbroek M T, den Boer J A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Springer, Berlin 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bachert P. Status und Zukunft der molekularen Bildgebung mit hochauflösender kernmagnetischer Resonanz.  Z Med Phys. 2005;  15 163-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Reimer P, Parizel P M, Stichnoth F A. Klinische MR-Bildgebung. Eine praktische Anleitung. Springer, Berlin 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Rinck P E. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. The basic textbook of the European Magnetic Resonance forum. 4th completely revised edition. Blackwell, Berlin 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Gillies (ed) R J. NMR in physiology and biomedicine. Academic Press, San Diego 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Gillies R J, Morse D L. In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy in cancer.  Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2005;  7 287-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mansfield P. Real-time echo-planar imaging by NMR.  Br Med Bull. 1984;  40 187-190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mayr N A, Yuh W T, Magnotta V A, Ehrhardt J C, Wheeler J A, Sorosky J I, Davis C S, Wen B C, Martin D D, Pelsang R E, Buller R E, Oberley L W, Mellenberg D E, Hussey D H. Tumor perfusion studies using fast MRI technique in advanced cervical cancer: a non-invasive predictice assay.  Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;  36 623-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wlodarczyk W, Hentschel M, Wust P, Noeske R, Hosten N, Rineberg H, Felix R. Comparison of four magnetic resonance methods for mapping small temperature changes.  Phys Med Biol. 1999;  44 607-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kuroda K, Mulkern R V, Oshio K, Panych L P, Nakai T, Moriya T, Okuda S, Hynynen K, Jolesz F A. Temperature mapping using the water proton chemical shift: self-referenced method with echo-planar spectroscopic imaging.  Magn Res Med. 2000;  43 220-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hentschel M, Dreher W, Wust P, Röll S, Leibfritz D, Felix R. Fast spectroscopic imaging for noninvasive thermometry using the Pr[MOE-DO3A] complex.  Phys Med Biol. 1999;  44 2397-2409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mäurer J. Hochauflösende MRT von Hauttumoren in vitro und tierexperimentelle Studien zur Kontrastgebung von Gd-DTPA und Gd-DTPA-Polylysin, klinische Ergebnisse unter Verwendung von Gd-DTPA. Habilitationsschrift, Freie Universität Berlin 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Johnson G A, Cofer G P, Gewalt S L, Hedlund L W. Morpholocic phenotyping with MR microscopy: The visible mouse.  Radiology. 2002;  222 789-793
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ciobanu L, Seeber D A, Pennington C H. 3D MR microscopy with resolution 3.7 µm by 3.3 µm by 3.3 µm.  J Magn Res. 2002;  158 178-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zhang Z, van den Bos E J, Wielopolski P A, de Jong-Popijus M, Bernsen M R, Duncker D J, Krestin G P. In vitro imaging of single living human umbilical vein endothelial cells with clinical 3.0 T MRI scanner.  Magma. 2005;  18 175-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hentschel M, Müller F, Brink I. Potentials and limits of combined anatomical and functional imaging modalities. In: Conrad K, Bachmann M, Lehmann W, Sack U (eds). Methods, possibilities and perspectives of pre-symptomatic tumor diagnostics. Pabst Science Publishers, 2005; 297-305
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Hentschel M, Oellinger H, Siewert C, Wieder H, Hosten N, Wendt O, Lüth T, Boenick U, Felix R. 1H and 31P NMR characterization of a double breast coil for spectroscopic measurements and imaging.  Biomed Technik. 1999;  44 272-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hentschel M, Wust P, Fähling H, Richter R, Vogl T, Semmler W, Wolf K -J, Felix R. Spektroskopische Eigenschaften einer interstitiellen Miniaturantenne für die 31P MRS.  Strahlenther Oncol. 1996;  172 610-618
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zakian K L, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen H N, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, Muruganandham M, Ebora L, Kattan M W, Reuter V E, Scardino P T, Koutcher J A. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on Stepp-section pathologic analysis affter raddical prostatectomy.  Radiology. 2005;  234 804-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hentschel M, Wust P, Wlodarczyk W, Frenzel T, Sander B, Hosten N, Felix R. Non-invasive MR thermometry by 2D spectroscopic imaging of the Pr[MOE-DO3A] complex.  Int J Hyperthermia. 1998;  14 69-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Edelstein W A, Glover G H, Hardy C J, Redington R W. The intrinsic Signal-to-Noise-Ratio in NMR imaging.  Magn Res Med. 1986;  3 604-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bruker Almanac. Bruker scientific instruments, data sheets, Karlsruhe 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Kunsch K, Kunsch S. Der Mensch in Zahlen. Eine Datensammlung in Tabellen mit über 20 000 Einzelwerten. 2. Auflage. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Weissleder R, Moor A, Mahmood U, Bhorade R, Beneviste H, Chiocca E A, Basilion J P. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of transgene expression.  Nature Med. 2002;  6 351-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hentschel M, Findeisen M, Schmidt W, Frenzel T, Wlodarczyk W, Wust F R. Is absolute non-invasive temperature measurement by the Pr[MOE-DO3A] complex feasible?.  Magma. 2000;  10 52-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schäfers K P. Imaging small animals with positron emission tomography.  Nuklearmed. 2003;  42 86-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wienhard K, Wagner R, Heiss W D. PET Grundlagen und Anwendungen der Positronen Emissions Tomografie. Springer, Heidelberg 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Wieler H J, Coleman (eds) R E. PET in clinical oncology. Steinkopff, Darmstadt 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Muehllehner G, Karp J S. Positron emission tomography.  Phys Med Biol. 2006;  51 R117-R137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Nutt R. The history of Positron emission tomography.  Mol Imag Biol. 2002;  4 11-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Humm J L, Rosenfeld A, Del Guerra A. From PET detectors to PET scanners.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2003;  30 1574-1597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Chatziioannou A F. PET scanners dedicated to molecular imaging of small animal models.  Mol Imag Biol. 2002;  4 47-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Valentin J. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. (Addendum 2 to ICRP Publication 53) ICRP Publication 80 Approved September 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Livieratos L, Rajappan K, Stegger L, Schafers K, Bailey D L, Camici P G. Respiratory gating of cardiac PET data in list-mode acquisition.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33 584-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Beyer T, Yau Y Y, Kaepplinger S. PET/CT tomography using a new PET detector material for ultra-fast imaging in clinical oncology.  Electromedia. 2002;  70 151-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kinahan P E, Townsend D W, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner.  Med Phys. 1998;  25 2046-2053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Beyer T, Townsend D W, Brun T, Kinahan P E, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology.  J Nucl Med. 2000;  41 1369-1379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn A H, Schulthess G K von. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;  29 922-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Sanchez-Crespo A, Andreo P, Larsson S A. Positron flight in human tissues and its influence on PET image spatial resolution.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;  31 44-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Shepp L A, Vardi Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography.  IEEE Trans Med Imag. 1982;  MI-1 113-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hudson H M, Larkin R S. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data.  IEEE Trans Med Imag. 1994;  13 601-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Tarantala G, Zito F, Gerundini P. PET instrumentation and reconstruction algorithms in whole-body application.  J Nucl Med. 2003;  44 756-769
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Wienhard K, Eriksson L, Grootoonk S, Casey M, Pietrzyk U, Heiss W D. Performance evaluation of the positron scanner ECAT EXACT.  J Comp Ass Tomogr. 1992;  16 804-813
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Schäfers K P, Reader A J, Kriens M, Knoess C, Schober O, Schäfers M. Performance evaluation of the 32-module quadHIDAC small-animal PET scanner.  J Nucl Med. 2005;  46 996-1004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Hoffman E J, Huang S C, Phelps M E. Quantitation in postron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size.  J Comp Ass Tomogr. 1979;  3 299-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Geworski L. et al . Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;  27 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Strauss H W, Grewal R K, Pandit-Taskar N. Molecular imaging in nuclear cardiology.  Semin Nucl Med. 2004;  34 47-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Diederich S, Wormanns D. Der pulmonale Rundherd. Neue Konzepte bei einem alten Problem.  Radiologie Up2Date. 2003;  3 301-314
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Visvikis D, Ell P J. Impact of technology on the utilisation of PET in lymphoma: current and future perspectives.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2003;  30 106-116
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Brix G, Adam L E, Zaers J, Trojan H, Bellemann M E, Nosske D, Doll J. Reduktion der Strahlenexposition bei PET-Untersuchungen durch Datenakquisition im 3D-Modus.  Nuklearmedizin. 1999;  38 75-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Jägel M, Adam L E, Bellemann M E, Zaers J, Trojan H, Rauschnabel K, Brix G. Untersuchungen des Signal-zu-Rausch-Verhältnisses an einem modernen PET-System: Messungen am EEC-Ganzkörperphantom.  Nuklearmedizin. 1998;  37 171-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Bailey D L, Jones T, Spinks T J. A method for measuring the absolute sensitivity of positron emission tomographic scanners.  Eur J Nucl Med. 1991;  18 374-379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Strother S C, Casey M E, Hoffman E J. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts.  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;  37 783-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Higashi K, Clavo A, Wahl R L. Does FDG uptake measure proliferative avtivity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake.  J Nucl Med. 1993;  34 414-419
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Wahl R L. Anatomolecular imaging with 2-deoy-2-[18F] Fluoro-D-Glucose: bench to outpatient center.  Mol Imag Biol. 2003;  5 49-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Oehr P, Gilbert N, Lemmoch H, Ludwig M, Wagner R, Schüller H, Rink H. PET in cell cultures: oncology, genetics, and therapy. In: Oehr P, Biersack H-J, Coleman RE (eds). Chapter 8 in PET and PET-CT in oncology. Springer, Berlin 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 69 Su H, Forbes A, Gambhir S S, Braun J. Quantitation of cell number by Positron Emission Tomography reporter gene strategy.  Mol Imag Biol. 2004;  6 139-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Jacobs A, Voges J, Reszka R, Lercher M, Gossmann A, Kracht L, Kaestle C, Wagner R, Wienhard K, Heiss W D. Positron-emission tomography of vector-mediated gene expression in gene therapy for gliomas.  Lancet. 2001;  358 727-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Clavo A C, Brown R S, Wahl R L. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human cancer cell lines is increased by hypoxia.  J Nucl Med. 1995;  36 1125-1132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Garcia C A, van Nostrand D V, Atkins F, Acio E, Butler C, Esposito G, Kulkarni K, Majd M. Reduction of brown fat 2-deoy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose uptake by controlling environmental temperature prior to PET scan.  Mol Imaging Biol. 2006;  8 24-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells.  Science. 1956;  123 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Brown R S, Leung J Y, Fisher S J, Frey K A, Ethier S P, Wahl R L. Intratumoral distribution of tritiated-FDG in breast carcinoma: Correlation between Glut-1 expression and FDG uptake.  J Nucl Med. 1996;  37 1042-1047
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Yamada K, Brink I, Bisse E, Epting T, Engelhardt R. Factors influencing [F-18] 2 Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose (F-18 FDG) uptake in melanoma cells: The role of proliferation rate, viability, glucose transporter expression and hexokinase activity.  J Dermatol. 2005;  32 316-334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Lee J D, Yang W I. et al . Different glucose uptake and glycolytic mechanisms between hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma with increased 18F-FDG uptake.  J Nucl Med. 2005;  46 1753-1759
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. rer. nat. M. Hentschel

Abteilung Nuklearmedizin · Universitätsklinikum Freiburg

Hugstetterstr. 55

79106 Freiburg

Phone: +49/7 61/2 70 39 60

Fax: +49/7 61/2 70 39 89

Email: michael.hentschel@uniklinik-freiburg.de

      >