UNLABELLED: Many authors have reported the importance of motion correction (MC) for PET. Patient motion during scanning disturbs kinetic analysis and degrades resolution. In addition, using misaligned transmission for attenuation and scatter correction may produce regional quantification bias in the reconstructed emission images. The purpose of this work was the development of quality control (QC) methods for MC procedures based on external motion tracking (EMT) for human scanning using an optical motion tracking system. METHODS: Two scans with minor motion and 5 with major motion (as reported by the optical motion tracking system) were selected from (18)F-FDG scans acquired on a PET scanner. The motion was measured as the maximum displacement of the markers attached to the subject's head and was considered to be major if larger than 4 mm and minor if less than 2 mm. After allowing a 40- to 60-min uptake time after tracer injection, we acquired a 6-min transmission scan, followed by a 40-min emission list-mode scan. Each emission list-mode dataset was divided into 8 frames of 5 min. The reconstructed time-framed images were aligned to a selected reference frame using either EMT or the AIR (automated image registration) software. The following 3 QC methods were used to evaluate the EMT and AIR MC: a method using the ratio between 2 regions of interest with gray matter voxels (GM) and white matter voxels (WM), called GM/WM; mutual information; and cross correlation. RESULTS: The results of the 3 QC methods were in agreement with one another and with a visual subjective inspection of the image data. Before MC, the QC method measures varied significantly in scans with major motion and displayed limited variations on scans with minor motion. The variation was significantly reduced and measures improved after MC with AIR, whereas EMT MC performed less well. CONCLUSION: The 3 presented QC methods produced similar results and are useful for evaluating tracer-independent external-tracking motion-correction methods for human brain scans.
UNLABELLED: Many authors have reported the importance of motion correction (MC) for PET. Patient motion during scanning disturbs kinetic analysis and degrades resolution. In addition, using misaligned transmission for attenuation and scatter correction may produce regional quantification bias in the reconstructed emission images. The purpose of this work was the development of quality control (QC) methods for MC procedures based on external motion tracking (EMT) for human scanning using an optical motion tracking system. METHODS: Two scans with minor motion and 5 with major motion (as reported by the optical motion tracking system) were selected from (18)F-FDG scans acquired on a PET scanner. The motion was measured as the maximum displacement of the markers attached to the subject's head and was considered to be major if larger than 4 mm and minor if less than 2 mm. After allowing a 40- to 60-min uptake time after tracer injection, we acquired a 6-min transmission scan, followed by a 40-min emission list-mode scan. Each emission list-mode dataset was divided into 8 frames of 5 min. The reconstructed time-framed images were aligned to a selected reference frame using either EMT or the AIR (automated image registration) software. The following 3 QC methods were used to evaluate the EMT and AIR MC: a method using the ratio between 2 regions of interest with gray matter voxels (GM) and white matter voxels (WM), called GM/WM; mutual information; and cross correlation. RESULTS: The results of the 3 QC methods were in agreement with one another and with a visual subjective inspection of the image data. Before MC, the QC method measures varied significantly in scans with major motion and displayed limited variations on scans with minor motion. The variation was significantly reduced and measures improved after MC with AIR, whereas EMT MC performed less well. CONCLUSION: The 3 presented QC methods produced similar results and are useful for evaluating tracer-independent external-tracking motion-correction methods for human brain scans.
Authors: Dean F Wong; Hiroto Kuwabara; Martin Pomper; Daniel P Holt; James R Brasic; Noble George; Boris Frolov; William Willis; Yongjun Gao; Heather Valentine; Ayon Nandi; Lorena Gapasin; Robert F Dannals; Andrew G Horti Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Brian A Anderson; Hiroto Kuwabara; Dean F Wong; Emily G Gean; Arman Rahmim; James R Brašić; Noble George; Boris Frolov; Susan M Courtney; Steven Yantis Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Enette Mae Revilla; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Mika Naganawa; Takuya Toyonaga; Kathryn Fontaine; Tim Mulnix; John A Onofrey; Richard E Carson; Yihuan Lu Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 7.400
Authors: Hu Ye; Koon-Pong Wong; Mirwais Wardak; Magnus Dahlbom; Vladimir Kepe; Jorge R Barrio; Linda D Nelson; Gary W Small; Sung-Cheng Huang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sune H Keller; Casper Hansen; Christian Hansen; Flemming L Andersen; Claes Ladefoged; Claus Svarer; Andreas Kjær; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law; Otto M Henriksen; Adam E Hansen Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-07-16