Two birds with one stone: can [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT image quality be improved through BMI-adjusted injected activity without increasing acquisition times?

Objectives: To assess how patients' dependent parameters may affect [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC image quality and to propose a theoretical body mass index (BMI)-adjusted injected activity (IA) scheme, to improve imaging of high weight patients. Methods: Among patients prospectively enrolled (June-2019 and May-2020) in an Institutional Ethical Committee-approved electronic archive, we included those affected by primary gastro-entero- pancreatic (GEP) or lung neuroendocrine tumour and referred by our Institutional clinicians (excluding even minimal radiopharmaceutical extravasation, movement artefacts, renal insufficiency). All PET/CT images were acquired following EANM guidelines and rated for visual quality (1 = non-diagnostic, 2 = poor, 3 = moderate, 4 = good). Collected data included patient's body mass, height, BMI, age, IA (injected activity), IA/Kg (IAkg), IA/BMI (IABMI), liver SUVmean, liver SUVmax standard deviation, liver-signal- to- noise (LSNR), normalised_LSNR (LSNR_norm) and contrast-to- noise ratio (CNR) for positive scans and were compared to image rating (poor vs moderate/good). Results: Overall, 77 patients were included. Rating concordance was high (agreement = 81.8%, Fleiss k score = 0.806). All patients' dependent parameters resulted significantly different between poor-rated and moderate/good-rated scans (IA: p = 0.006, IAkg: p =< 0.001, body weight: p =< 0.001, BMI: p =< 0.001, IABMI: p =< 0.001). Factors significantly associated with moderate/good rating were BMI (p =< 0.001), body weight (p =< 0.001), IABMI (p =< 0.001), IAkg (p = 0.001), IA (p = 0.003), LSNR_norm (p = 0.01). The BMI-based model presented the best predictive efficiency (81.82%). IABMI performance to differentiate moderate/ good from poor rating resulted statistically significant (IA-AUC = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.68-0.89; cut-off value of 4.17 MBq*m2/kg, sensitivity = 81.1%, specificity = 66.7%). If BMI-adjusted IA (=4.17*BMI) would have been applied in this population, the median IA would have slightly inferior (-4.8%), despite a different IA in each patient