Gaspar Delso1, Sibylle Ziegler. 1. Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. gaspar.delso@tum.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The combination of clinical MRI and PET systems has received increased attention in recent years. In contrast to currently used PET/CT systems, PET/MRI offers not only improved soft-tissue contrast and reduced levels of ionizing radiation, but also a wealth of MRI-specific information such as functional, spectroscopic and diffusion tensor imaging. Combining PET and MRI, however, has proven to be very challenging, due to the detrimental cross-talk effects between the two systems. OBJECTIVE: Significant progress has been made in the recent years to overcome these difficulties, with several groups reporting PET/MRI prototypes for animal imaging and a clinical insert for neurological applications being demonstrated at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. DISCUSSION: In this paper we review different architectures for clinical PET/MRI systems, and their possibilities, limitations and technological obstacles.
INTRODUCTION: The combination of clinical MRI and PET systems has received increased attention in recent years. In contrast to currently used PET/CT systems, PET/MRI offers not only improved soft-tissue contrast and reduced levels of ionizing radiation, but also a wealth of MRI-specific information such as functional, spectroscopic and diffusion tensor imaging. Combining PET and MRI, however, has proven to be very challenging, due to the detrimental cross-talk effects between the two systems. OBJECTIVE: Significant progress has been made in the recent years to overcome these difficulties, with several groups reporting PET/MRI prototypes for animal imaging and a clinical insert for neurological applications being demonstrated at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. DISCUSSION: In this paper we review different architectures for clinical PET/MRI systems, and their possibilities, limitations and technological obstacles.
Authors: R B Slates; K Farahani; Y Shao; P K Marsden; J Taylor; P E Summers; S Williams; J Beech; S R Cherry Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Bernd J Pichler; Martin S Judenhofer; Ciprian Catana; Jeffrey H Walton; Manfred Kneilling; Robert E Nutt; Stefan B Siegel; Claus D Claussen; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Yibao Wu; Martin S Judenhofer; Jinyi Qi; Bernd J Pichler; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Stan Majewski; S Sendhil Velan; Susan Lemieux; Brian Kross; Vladimir Popov; Mark F Smith; Andrew G Weisenberger Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2007-03-24 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Stan Majewski; Susan K Lemieux; S Sendhil Velan; Brian Kross; Vladimir Popov; Mark F Smith; Andrew G Weisenberger; Carl Zorn; Gary D Marano Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-11-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Stephanie N Histed; Maria L Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Zhaolin Chen; Sharna D Jamadar; Shenpeng Li; Francesco Sforazzini; Jakub Baran; Nicholas Ferris; Nadim Jon Shah; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: R A Bundschuh; N Andratschke; J Dinges; M N Duma; S T Astner; M Brügel; S I Ziegler; M Molls; M Schwaiger; M Essler Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Pieter Mollet; Vincent Keereman; Jason Bini; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Zahi A Fayad; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent Friedman; Hersh Chandarana; Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy; Yu-Shin Ding; Komal Jhaveri; Luis Beltran; Rajan Jain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959