Back

External validation and time-stability analysis of STARE, a blood-free quantification tool for irreversible PET tracers

Laurell, G. L.; Bartlett, E. A.; Schmidt, M.; Anishenko, S.; Shkolnik, I.; Ogden, R. T.; Mann, J. J.; Beylin, D.; Miller, J. M.; Zanderigo, F.

2026-02-11 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.02.09.704936 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Rationale"Gold standard" blood-based quantification of dynamic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) data has limited practical clinical applications due to cost and complexity of data collection and analysis. We previously presented a blood-free quantification alternative, STARE (Source-to-Target Automatic Rotating Estimation), that was validated on 18F-FDG data acquired on a ECAT EXACT HR+ scanner. Here, we extend that initial work by externally validating STARE using within-subject data acquired with both a Siemens Biograph mCT scanner and a portable Brain Biosciences CerePET scanner. MethodsPerformance was assessed by comparing regional net influx rates (Ki) estimated using STARE and the standard blood-based Patlak approach. Twenty participants underwent 60-minute 18F-FDG scans, on two different days, once in each scanner. The time-stability of both STARE- and Patlak-based Ki estimates was evaluated by applying each method to the first 20 (STARE only), 30, 40, and 50 minutes of data. ResultsSTARE demonstrated high correlation with Patlak Ki estimates across both scanner types, particularly in the Biograph mCT (r = 0.93), with lower correlation in the CerePET (r = 0.71). In the Biograph dataset, STARE provided reliable Ki estimates at all evaluated scan durations (20 minutes and above), while in the CerePET dataset, only the 50-minute duration yielded STARE Ki estimates that were not significantly different from the full 60 minutes. The Patlak approach provided Ki estimates at 40 minutes scan duration and above that did not differ from the 60-min scan results in both datasets. ConclusionSTARE is a viable, noninvasive alternative to traditional blood-based quantification of dynamic 18F-FDG PET data, facilitating shorter, blood-free acquisition. This advancement could make dynamic 18F-FDG PET imaging more accessible and comfortable for patients, promoting broader clinical adoption.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
44.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.8%
4
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.2%
5
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
6
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
7
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
8
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
9
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
10
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
11
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
12
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
13
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.0%
16
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
18
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
19
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
22
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
23
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%