BACKGROUND: PET reconstruction incorporating spatially variant 3D Point Spread Function (PSF) improves contrast and image resolution. "Cardiac Motion Frozen" (CMF) processing eliminates the influence of cardiac motion in static summed images. We have evaluated the combined use of CMF- and PSF-based reconstruction for high-resolution cardiac PET. METHODS: Static and 16-bin ECG-gated images of 20 patients referred for (18)F-FDG myocardial viability scans were obtained on a Siemens Biograph-64. CMF was applied to the gated images reconstructed with PSF. Myocardium to blood contrast, maximum left ventricle (LV) counts to defect contrast, contrast-to-noise (CNR) and wall thickness with standard reconstruction (2D-AWOSEM), PSF, ED-gated PSF, and CMF-PSF were compared. RESULTS: The measured wall thickness was 18.9 ± 5.2 mm for 2D-AWOSEM, 16.6 ± 4.5 mm for PSF, and 13.8 ± 3.9 mm for CMF-PSF reconstructed images (all P < .05). The CMF-PSF myocardium to blood and maximum LV counts to defect contrasts (5.7 ± 2.7, 10.0 ± 5.7) were higher than for 2D-AWOSEM (3.5 ± 1.4, 6.5 ± 3.1) and for PSF (3.9 ± 1.7, 7.7 ± 3.7) (CMF vs all other, P < .05). The CNR for CMF-PSF (26.3 ± 17.5) was comparable to PSF (29.1 ± 18.3), but higher than for ED-gated dataset (13.7 ± 8.8, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Combined CMF-PSF reconstruction increased myocardium to blood contrast, maximum LV counts to defect contrast and maintained equivalent noise when compared to static summed 2D-AWOSEM and PSF reconstruction.
BACKGROUND: PET reconstruction incorporating spatially variant 3D Point Spread Function (PSF) improves contrast and image resolution. "Cardiac Motion Frozen" (CMF) processing eliminates the influence of cardiac motion in static summed images. We have evaluated the combined use of CMF- and PSF-based reconstruction for high-resolution cardiac PET. METHODS: Static and 16-bin ECG-gated images of 20 patients referred for (18)F-FDG myocardial viability scans were obtained on a Siemens Biograph-64. CMF was applied to the gated images reconstructed with PSF. Myocardium to blood contrast, maximum left ventricle (LV) counts to defect contrast, contrast-to-noise (CNR) and wall thickness with standard reconstruction (2D-AWOSEM), PSF, ED-gated PSF, and CMF-PSF were compared. RESULTS: The measured wall thickness was 18.9 ± 5.2 mm for 2D-AWOSEM, 16.6 ± 4.5 mm for PSF, and 13.8 ± 3.9 mm for CMF-PSF reconstructed images (all P < .05). The CMF-PSF myocardium to blood and maximum LV counts to defect contrasts (5.7 ± 2.7, 10.0 ± 5.7) were higher than for 2D-AWOSEM (3.5 ± 1.4, 6.5 ± 3.1) and for PSF (3.9 ± 1.7, 7.7 ± 3.7) (CMF vs all other, P < .05). The CNR for CMF-PSF (26.3 ± 17.5) was comparable to PSF (29.1 ± 18.3), but higher than for ED-gated dataset (13.7 ± 8.8, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Combined CMF-PSF reconstruction increased myocardium to blood contrast, maximum LV counts to defect contrast and maintained equivalent noise when compared to static summed 2D-AWOSEM and PSF reconstruction.
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Cigdem Akincioglu; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Usaf E Aladl; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ludovic Le Meunier; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey; Amit Ramesh; Louis E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Victor Cheng; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: S Kaul; G L Wismer; T J Brady; D L Johnston; A E Weyman; R D Okada; R E Dinsmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1986-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sally J DeNardo; Gerald L DeNardo; Arutselvan Natarajan; Laird A Miers; Allan R Foreman; Cordula Gruettner; Grete N Adamson; Robert Ivkov Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dan J Kadrmas; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Bjoern W Jakoby; Cristina Lois; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ming Yu; Mary T Guaraldi; Mahesh Mistry; Mikhail Kagan; Jennifer L McDonald; Kenneth Drew; Heike Radeke; Michael Azure; Ajay Purohit; David S Casebier; Simon P Robinson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Andrei Todica; Sebastian Lehner; Hao Wang; Mathias J Zacherl; Katharina Nekolla; Erik Mille; Guoming Xiong; Peter Bartenstein; Christian la Fougère; Marcus Hacker; Guido Böning Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christoph Kolbitsch; Mark A Ahlman; Cynthia Davies-Venn; Robert Evers; Michael Hansen; Devis Peressutti; Paul Marsden; Peter Kellman; David A Bluemke; Tobias Schaeffter Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057