PURPOSE: Misalignment of low-dose-CT used for attenuation correction (AC) may cause artifacts in cardiac-PET-CT. The aim was to evaluate incidence and severity of misalignment and its quantitative effects on regional myocardial (82)Rb-distribution. METHODS: Rest/dipyridamole (82)Rb-perfusion-PET-CT studies of 92 consecutive patients were analyzed for misalignment. Two different scanning protocols were employed: the first 57 patients had separate CTs for rest and stress PET. The following 35 patients had one CT at rest, used for AC of rest and stress PET. Misalignment was visually scored on a five-point scale (0 = no, 1 = minimal, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe). In five representative patients with normal perfusion and low probability of disease, 95 polarmaps were created by shifting CT vs PET prior to reconstruction of attenuation-corrected data sets using dedicated software (three dimensions of space; magnitude of shifts, 5, 10, 14 mm). RESULTS: PET/CT -misalignment was detected in 60% of rest and 67% of stress studies. Alignment for rest was better than that for stress (0.7 +/- 0.7 vs 1.0 +/- 0.9, P = 0.03). Comparison of the two protocols revealed no effect on the alignment of the stress study (1.0 +/- 0.9 vs 1.0 +/- 0.9, P = 0.9). Quantitatively, the largest individual effect of any artificial misalignment was a 25% reduction of relative (82)Rb uptake. With a shift of 1 cm, the largest effect in an individual was a 19% decrease. Anterior wall was most frequently influenced by misalignment, but changes of uptake also occurred in all other segments. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment between CT and PET in cardiac-PET-CT influences regional tracer distribution in multiple segments. Repeated CT imaging after dipyridamole does not improve alignment. These results emphasize the need for strategies to improve coregistration in clinical imaging protocols.
PURPOSE: Misalignment of low-dose-CT used for attenuation correction (AC) may cause artifacts in cardiac-PET-CT. The aim was to evaluate incidence and severity of misalignment and its quantitative effects on regional myocardial (82)Rb-distribution. METHODS: Rest/dipyridamole (82)Rb-perfusion-PET-CT studies of 92 consecutive patients were analyzed for misalignment. Two different scanning protocols were employed: the first 57 patients had separate CTs for rest and stress PET. The following 35 patients had one CT at rest, used for AC of rest and stress PET. Misalignment was visually scored on a five-point scale (0 = no, 1 = minimal, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe). In five representative patients with normal perfusion and low probability of disease, 95 polarmaps were created by shifting CT vs PET prior to reconstruction of attenuation-corrected data sets using dedicated software (three dimensions of space; magnitude of shifts, 5, 10, 14 mm). RESULTS: PET/CT -misalignment was detected in 60% of rest and 67% of stress studies. Alignment for rest was better than that for stress (0.7 +/- 0.7 vs 1.0 +/- 0.9, P = 0.03). Comparison of the two protocols revealed no effect on the alignment of the stress study (1.0 +/- 0.9 vs 1.0 +/- 0.9, P = 0.9). Quantitatively, the largest individual effect of any artificial misalignment was a 25% reduction of relative (82)Rb uptake. With a shift of 1 cm, the largest effect in an individual was a 19% decrease. Anterior wall was most frequently influenced by misalignment, but changes of uptake also occurred in all other segments. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment between CT and PET in cardiac-PET-CT influences regional tracer distribution in multiple segments. Repeated CT imaging after dipyridamole does not improve alignment. These results emphasize the need for strategies to improve coregistration in clinical imaging protocols.
Authors: Medhat M Osman; Christian Cohade; Yuji Nakamoto; Laura T Marshall; Jeff P Leal; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tinsu Pan; Osama Mawlawi; Sadek A Nehmeh; Yusuf E Erdi; Dershan Luo; Hui H Liu; Richard Castillo; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao; H A Macapinlac Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Khaldoun G Tarakji; Richard Brunken; Patrick M McCarthy; M Obadah Al-Chekakie; Ahmed Abdel-Latif; Claire E Pothier; Eugene H Blackstone; Michael S Lauer Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S A Nehmeh; Y E Erdi; T Pan; A Pevsner; K E Rosenzweig; E Yorke; G S Mageras; H Schoder; Phil Vernon; O Squire; H Mostafavi; S M Larson; J L Humm Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Uchechukwu K Sampson; Sharmila Dorbala; Atul Limaye; Raymond Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pardis Ghafarian; S M R Aghamiri; Mohammad R Ay; Arman Rahmim; Thomas H Schindler; Osman Ratib; Habib Zaidi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Albert Flotats; Paco E Bravo; Kenji Fukushima; Muhammad A Chaudhry; Jennifer Merrill; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David T Chien; Paco Bravo; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Riikka Lautamäki; Richard T George; Kakuya Kitagawa; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Corina Voicu; Anthony DiPaula; Stephan G Nekolla; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 9.236