68Ga-EDTA PET/CT imaging and plasma clearance for glomerular filtration rate quantification: comparison to conventional 51Cr-EDTA.

Abstract

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can accurately be determined using (51)Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma clearance counting but is time-consuming and requires technical skills and equipment not always available in imaging departments. (68)Ga-EDTA can be readily available using an onsite generator, and PET/CT enables both imaging of renal function and accurate camera-based quantitation of clearance of activity from blood and its appearance in the urine. This study aimed to assess agreement between (68)Ga-EDTA GFR ((68)Ga-GFR) and (51)Cr-EDTA GFR ((51)Cr-GFR), using serial plasma sampling and PET imaging. (68)Ga-EDTA and (51)Cr-EDTA were injected concurrently in 31 patients. Dynamic PET/CT encompassing the kidneys was acquired for 10 min followed by 3 sequential 3-min multibed step acquisitions from kidneys to bladder. PET quantification was performed using renal activity at 1-2 min (PETinitial), renal excretion at 2-10 min (PETearly), and, subsequently, urinary excretion into the collecting system and bladder (PETlate). Plasma sampling at 2, 3, and 4 h was performed, with (68)Ga followed by (51)Cr counting after positron decay. The level of agreement for GFR determination was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). (51)Cr-GFR ranged from 10 to 220 mL/min (mean, 85 mL/min). There was good agreement between (68)Ga-GFR and (51)Cr-GFR using serial plasma sampling, with a Bland-Altman bias of -14 ± 20 mL/min and a PCC of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97). Of the 3 methods used for camera-based quantification, the strongest correlation was for plasma sampling-derived GFR with PETlate (PCC of 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95). (68)Ga-GFR agreed well with (51)Cr-GFR for estimation of GFR using serial plasma counting. PET dynamic imaging provides a method to estimate GFR without plasma sampling, with the additional advantage of enabling renal imaging in a single study. Additional validation in a larger cohort is warranted to further assess utility.