Martin A Lodge1, Joyce C Mhlanga, Steve Y Cho, Richard L Wahl. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA. mlodge1@jhmi.edu
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Arm motion during whole-body PET/CT acquisition is not uncommon and can give rise to striking cold artifacts on PET images. We investigated the mechanisms that underlie these artifacts and proposed a potential solution. METHODS: A phantom experiment based on 5 clinical cases of suspected arm motion was designed. The experiment involved a central 20-cm-diameter (68)Ge/(68)Ga cylinder simulating the neck and 2 peripheral 10-cm-diameter (18)F cylinders simulating arms. After motion-free CT and PET on a whole-body PET/CT system, the position of the arms was altered so as to introduce different amounts of misalignment. Twenty sequential PET scans were acquired in this position, alternating between 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) acquisition, as the (18)F decayed. Decay of (18)F in the arms, while the activity in the (68)Ge/(68)Ga cylinder remained approximately constant, allowed the relative impact of scatter and attenuation-correction errors to be determined. RESULTS: Image artifacts were largely confined to the local region of motion in 2D but extended throughout the affected slices in 3D, where they manifested as a striking underestimation of radiotracer concentration that became more significant with increasing misalignment. For 3D, scatter-correction error depended on activity in the arms, but for typical activity concentrations scatter-correction error was more significant than attenuation-correction error. 3D image reconstruction without scatter correction substantially eliminated these artifacts in both phantom and patient images. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction artifacts due to patient arm motion can be substantial and should be recognized because they can affect both qualitative and quantitative assessment of PET.
UNLABELLED: Arm motion during whole-body PET/CT acquisition is not uncommon and can give rise to striking cold artifacts on PET images. We investigated the mechanisms that underlie these artifacts and proposed a potential solution. METHODS: A phantom experiment based on 5 clinical cases of suspected arm motion was designed. The experiment involved a central 20-cm-diameter (68)Ge/(68)Ga cylinder simulating the neck and 2 peripheral 10-cm-diameter (18)F cylinders simulating arms. After motion-free CT and PET on a whole-body PET/CT system, the position of the arms was altered so as to introduce different amounts of misalignment. Twenty sequential PET scans were acquired in this position, alternating between 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) acquisition, as the (18)F decayed. Decay of (18)F in the arms, while the activity in the (68)Ge/(68)Ga cylinder remained approximately constant, allowed the relative impact of scatter and attenuation-correction errors to be determined. RESULTS: Image artifacts were largely confined to the local region of motion in 2D but extended throughout the affected slices in 3D, where they manifested as a striking underestimation of radiotracer concentration that became more significant with increasing misalignment. For 3D, scatter-correction error depended on activity in the arms, but for typical activity concentrations scatter-correction error was more significant than attenuation-correction error. 3D image reconstruction without scatter correction substantially eliminated these artifacts in both phantom and patient images. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction artifacts due to patient arm motion can be substantial and should be recognized because they can affect both qualitative and quantitative assessment of PET.
Authors: Osama Mawlawi; Jeremy J Erasmus; Tinsu Pan; Dianna D Cody; Rachelle Campbell; Albert H Lonn; Steve Kohlmyer; Homer A Macapinlac; Donald A Podoloff Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Dominique Delbeke; R Edward Coleman; Milton J Guiberteau; Manuel L Brown; Henry D Royal; Barry A Siegel; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland; J Anthony Parker; Karl Hubner; Michael G Stabin; George Zubal; Marc Kachelriess; Valerie Cronin; Scott Holbrook Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hans Herzog; Lutz Tellmann; Roger Fulton; Isabelle Stangier; Elena Rota Kops; Kay Bente; Christian Boy; Rene Hurlemann; Uwe Pietrzyk Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Darko Zikic; René M Botnar; Ralph A Bundschuh; William Howe; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236