PURPOSE: Respiratory motion causes uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) images of chest structures to spread out and misregister with the CT images. This misregistration can alter the attenuation correction and thus the quantisation of PET images. In this paper, we present the first clinical results for a respiratory-gated PET (RG-PET) processing method based on a single breath-hold CT (BH-CT) acquisition, which seeks to improve diagnostic accuracy via better PET-to-CT co-registration. We refer to this method as "CT-based" RG-PET processing. METHODS: Thirteen lesions were studied. Patients underwent a standard clinical PET protocol and then the CT-based protocol, which consists of a 10-min List Mode RG-PET acquisition, followed by a shallow end-expiration BH-CT. The respective performances of the CT-based and clinical PET methods were evaluated by comparing the distances between the lesions' centroids on PET and CT images. SUV(MAX) and volume variations were also investigated. RESULTS: The CT-based method showed significantly lower (p = 0.027) centroid distances (mean change relative to the clinical method = -49%; range = -100% to 0%). This led to higher SUV(MAX) (mean change = +33%; range = -4% to 69%). Lesion volumes were significantly lower (p = 0.022) in CT-based PET volumes (mean change = -39%: range = -74% to -1%) compared with clinical ones. CONCLUSIONS: A CT-based RG-PET processing method can be implemented in clinical practice with a small increase in radiation exposure. It improves PET-CT co-registration of lung lesions and should lead to more accurate attenuation correction and thus SUV measurement.
PURPOSE: Respiratory motion causes uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) images of chest structures to spread out and misregister with the CT images. This misregistration can alter the attenuation correction and thus the quantisation of PET images. In this paper, we present the first clinical results for a respiratory-gated PET (RG-PET) processing method based on a single breath-hold CT (BH-CT) acquisition, which seeks to improve diagnostic accuracy via better PET-to-CT co-registration. We refer to this method as "CT-based" RG-PET processing. METHODS: Thirteen lesions were studied. Patients underwent a standard clinical PET protocol and then the CT-based protocol, which consists of a 10-min List Mode RG-PET acquisition, followed by a shallow end-expiration BH-CT. The respective performances of the CT-based and clinical PET methods were evaluated by comparing the distances between the lesions' centroids on PET and CT images. SUV(MAX) and volume variations were also investigated. RESULTS: The CT-based method showed significantly lower (p = 0.027) centroid distances (mean change relative to the clinical method = -49%; range = -100% to 0%). This led to higher SUV(MAX) (mean change = +33%; range = -4% to 69%). Lesion volumes were significantly lower (p = 0.022) in CT-based PET volumes (mean change = -39%: range = -74% to -1%) compared with clinical ones. CONCLUSIONS: A CT-based RG-PET processing method can be implemented in clinical practice with a small increase in radiation exposure. It improves PET-CT co-registration of lung lesions and should lead to more accurate attenuation correction and thus SUV measurement.
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: 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: Matthew D Gilman; Alan J Fischman; Vikram Krishnasetty; Elkan F Halpern; Suzanne L Aquino Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kenneth J Biehl; Feng-Ming Kong; Farrokh Dehdashti; Jian-Yue Jin; Sasa Mutic; Issam El Naqa; Barry A Siegel; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Claude Nahmias; Wahid T Hanna; Lindi M Wahl; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; James Hamill; Judson Jones; Dirk De Ruysscher; Philippe Lambin; Michel Ollers Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Miguel Ramalho; Mamdoh AlObaidy; Onofrio A Catalano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Marco Salvatore; Richard C Semelka Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2014-09-16