PURPOSE: In this study, the potential contribution of Dixon-based MR imaging with a rapid low-resolution breath-hold sequence, which is a technique used for MR-based attenuation correction (AC) for MR/positron emission tomography (PET), was evaluated for anatomical correlation of PET-positive lesions on a 3T clinical scanner compared to low-dose CT. This technique is also used in a recently installed fully integrated whole-body MR/PET system. METHODS: Thirty-five patients routinely scheduled for oncological staging underwent (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and a 2-point Dixon 3-D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) T1-weighted MR sequence on the same day. Two PET data sets reconstructed using attenuation maps from low-dose CT (PET(AC_CT)) or simulated MR-based segmentation (PET(AC_MR)) were evaluated for focal PET-positive lesions. The certainty for the correlation with anatomical structures was judged in the low-dose CT and Dixon-based MRI on a 4-point scale (0-3). In addition, the standardized uptake values (SUVs) for PET(AC_CT) and PET(AC_MR) were compared. RESULTS: Statistically, no significant difference could be found concerning anatomical localization for all 81 PET-positive lesions in low-dose CT compared to Dixon-based MR (mean 2.51 ± 0.85 and 2.37 ± 0.87, respectively; p = 0.1909). CT tended to be superior for small lymph nodes, bone metastases and pulmonary nodules, while Dixon-based MR proved advantageous for soft tissue pathologies like head/neck tumours and liver metastases. For the PET(AC_CT)- and PET(AC_MR)-based SUVs (mean 6.36 ± 4.47 and 6.31 ± 4.52, respectively) a nearly complete concordance with a highly significant correlation was found (r = 0.9975, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dixon-based MR imaging for MR AC allows for anatomical allocation of PET-positive lesions similar to low-dose CT in conventional PET/CT. Thus, this approach appears to be useful for future MR/PET for body regions not fully covered by diagnostic MRI due to potential time constraints.
PURPOSE: In this study, the potential contribution of Dixon-based MR imaging with a rapid low-resolution breath-hold sequence, which is a technique used for MR-based attenuation correction (AC) for MR/positron emission tomography (PET), was evaluated for anatomical correlation of PET-positive lesions on a 3T clinical scanner compared to low-dose CT. This technique is also used in a recently installed fully integrated whole-body MR/PET system. METHODS: Thirty-five patients routinely scheduled for oncological staging underwent (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and a 2-point Dixon 3-D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) T1-weighted MR sequence on the same day. Two PET data sets reconstructed using attenuation maps from low-dose CT (PET(AC_CT)) or simulated MR-based segmentation (PET(AC_MR)) were evaluated for focal PET-positive lesions. The certainty for the correlation with anatomical structures was judged in the low-dose CT and Dixon-based MRI on a 4-point scale (0-3). In addition, the standardized uptake values (SUVs) for PET(AC_CT) and PET(AC_MR) were compared. RESULTS: Statistically, no significant difference could be found concerning anatomical localization for all 81 PET-positive lesions in low-dose CT compared to Dixon-based MR (mean 2.51 ± 0.85 and 2.37 ± 0.87, respectively; p = 0.1909). CT tended to be superior for small lymph nodes, bone metastases and pulmonary nodules, while Dixon-based MR proved advantageous for soft tissue pathologies like head/neck tumours and liver metastases. For the PET(AC_CT)- and PET(AC_MR)-based SUVs (mean 6.36 ± 4.47 and 6.31 ± 4.52, respectively) a nearly complete concordance with a highly significant correlation was found (r = 0.9975, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dixon-based MR imaging for MR AC allows for anatomical allocation of PET-positive lesions similar to low-dose CT in conventional PET/CT. Thus, this approach appears to be useful for future MR/PET for body regions not fully covered by diagnostic MRI due to potential time constraints.
Authors: R Venkitaraman; G J R Cook; D P Dearnaley; C C Parker; V Khoo; R Eeles; R A Huddart; A Horwich; S A Sohaib Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt Gomez; Christian Rubbert; Florian Hild; Jens Köhler; Johannes Grueneisen; Henning Reis; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Harald H Quick; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Scott D Wollenweber; Gaspar Delso; Timothy Deller; David Goldhaber; Martin Hüllner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Johan Coolen; Johan Vansteenkiste; Frederik De Keyzer; Herbert Decaluwé; Walter De Wever; Christophe Deroose; Christophe Dooms; Eric Verbeken; Paul De Leyn; Vincent Vandecaveye; Dirk Van Raemdonck; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Steven Dymarkowski; Johny Verschakelen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Moeller; Sebastian Fürst; Konstantin Holzapfel; Tobias Maurer; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David Izquierdo-Garcia; Stephen J Sawiak; Karin Knesaurek; Jagat Narula; Valentin Fuster; Joseph Machac; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeffrey M C Lau; R Laforest; H Sotoudeh; X Nie; S Sharma; J McConathy; E Novak; A Priatna; R J Gropler; P K Woodard Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.952