OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquired on equipment capable of simultaneous MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) could potentially provide the gold standard method for motion correction of PET. To assess the latter, in this study we compared fast 2D and 3D MRI of the torso and used deformation parameters from real MRI data to correct simulated PET data for respiratory motion. METHODS: PET sinogram data were simulated using SimSET from a 4D pseudo-PET image series created by segmenting MR images acquired over a respiratory cycle. Motion-corrected PET images were produced using post-reconstruction registration (PRR) and motion-compensated image reconstruction (MCIR). RESULTS: MRI-based motion correction improved PET image quality at the lung-liver and lung-spleen boundaries and in the heart but little improvement was obtained where MRI contrast was low. The root mean square error in SUV units per voxel compared to a motion-free image was reduced from 0.0271 (no motion correction) to 0.0264 (PRR) and 0.0250 (MCIR). CONCLUSIONS: Motion correction using MRI can improve thoracic PET images but there are limitations due to the quality of fast MRI.
OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquired on equipment capable of simultaneous MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) could potentially provide the gold standard method for motion correction of PET. To assess the latter, in this study we compared fast 2D and 3D MRI of the torso and used deformation parameters from real MRI data to correct simulated PET data for respiratory motion. METHODS: PET sinogram data were simulated using SimSET from a 4D pseudo-PET image series created by segmenting MR images acquired over a respiratory cycle. Motion-corrected PET images were produced using post-reconstruction registration (PRR) and motion-compensated image reconstruction (MCIR). RESULTS: MRI-based motion correction improved PET image quality at the lung-liver and lung-spleen boundaries and in the heart but little improvement was obtained where MRI contrast was low. The root mean square error in SUV units per voxel compared to a motion-free image was reduced from 0.0271 (no motion correction) to 0.0264 (PRR) and 0.0250 (MCIR). CONCLUSIONS: Motion correction using MRI can improve thoracic PET images but there are limitations due to the quality of fast MRI.
Authors: John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Suresh Senan; Catharina E Kleynen; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J J van Vaals; M E Brummer; W T Dixon; H H Tuithof; H Engels; R C Nelson; B M Gerety; J L Chezmar; J A den Boer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1993 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: F Lamare; M J Ledesma Carbayo; T Cresson; G Kontaxakis; A Santos; C Cheze Le Rest; A J Reader; D Visvikis Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Chuan Huang; Yoann Petibon; Jinsong Ouyang; Timothy G Reese; Mark A Ahlman; David A Bluemke; Georges El Fakhri Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Svetlana Balyasnikova; Johan Löfgren; Robin de Nijs; Yanna Zamogilnaya; Liselotte Højgaard; Barbara M Fischer Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-15
Authors: Jana Taron; Christina Schraml; Christina Pfannenberg; Matthias Reimold; Nina Schwenzer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Petros Martirosian; Ferdinand Seith Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315