Search

Mapping the neuronal response during cognitive processing is of crucial importance to gain new insights into human brain function. BOLD imaging and ASL are established MRI methods in this endeavor. Recently, the novel approach of functional PET (fPET) was introduced, enabling absolute quantification of glucose metabolism at rest and during task execution in a single measurement. Here, we report test-retest reliability of fPET in direct comparison to BOLD imaging and ASL. Twenty healthy subjects underwent two PET/MRI measurements, providing estimates of glucose metabolism, cerebral blood flow (CBF) and blood oxygenation. A cognitive task was employed with different levels of difficulty requiring visual-motor coordination. Task-specific neuronal activation was robustly detected with all three imaging approaches. The highest reliability was obtained for glucose metabolism at rest. Although this dropped during task performance it was still comparable to that of CBF. In contrast, BOLD imaging yielded high performance only for qualitative spatial overlap of task effects but not for quantitative comparison. Hence, the combined assessment of fPET and ASL offers reliable and simultaneous absolute quantification of glucose metabolism and CBF at rest and task.

PurposeIn the human brain endogenous dopamine release is commonly assessed by the PET competition model. Although thoroughly validated, cognitive processing yields low signal changes and the assessment of several task conditions requires repeated scanning. Using the framework of functional PET imaging we introduce a novel approach which leverages the incorporation of the radioligand 6-[18F]FDOPA into the dynamic fast-acting regulation of the corresponding enzyme activities by neuronal firing and neurotransmitter release. We demonstrate the feasibility of the approach by the assessment of widely described sex differences in dopamine neurotransmission.MethodsReward and punishment processing was behaviorally investigated in 36 healthy participants, where 16 underwent fPET and fMRI while performing the monetary incentive delay task. 6-[18F]FDOPA was applied as bolus+infusion during a single 50 min PET acquisition. Task-specific changes in dopamine synthesis were identified with the general linear model and quantified with the Gjedde-Patlak plot.ResultsMonetary gain induced 78% increase in nucleus accumbens dopamine synthesis vs. 49% for loss in men. Interestingly, the opposite was discovered in women (gain: 51%, loss: 78%). Behavioral modeling revealed direct associations of task-specific dopamine synthesis with reward sensitivity in men (rho = −0.7) and with punishment sensitivity in women (rho = 0.89). As expected, fMRI showed robust task-specific neuronal activation but no sex difference.ConclusionsOur findings provide a dopaminergic basis for well-known behavioral differences in reward and punishment processing between women and men. This has important implications in psychiatric conditions showing sex-specific prevalence rates, altered reward processing and dopamine signaling. The high temporal resolution and pronounced magnitude of task-specific changes make fPET a promising tool to investigate functional neurotransmitter dynamics during cognitive or emotional processing in various brain disorders.

Absolute quantification of PET brain imaging requires the measurement of an arterial input function (AIF), typically obtained invasively via an arterial cannulation. We present an approach to automatically calculate an image-derived input function (IDIF) and cerebral metabolic rates of glucose (CMRGlc) from the [18F]FDG PET data using an integrated PET/MRI system. Ten healthy controls underwent test–retest dynamic [18F]FDG-PET/MRI examinations. The imaging protocol consisted of a 60-min PET list-mode acquisition together with a time-of-flight MR angiography scan for segmenting the carotid arteries and intermittent MR navigators to monitor subject movement. AIFs were collected as the reference standard. Attenuation correction was performed using a separate low-dose CT scan. Assessment of the percentage difference between area-under-the-curve of IDIF and AIF yielded values within ±5%. Similar test–retest variability was seen between AIFs (9 ± 8) % and the IDIFs (9 ± 7) %. Absolute percentage difference between CMRGlc values obtained from AIF and IDIF across all examinations and selected brain regions was 3.2% (interquartile range: (2.4–4.3) %, maximum