PURPOSE: Accurate attenuation correction (AC) is essential for quantitative analysis of PET tracer distribution. In MR, the lack of cortical bone signal makes bone segmentation difficult and may require implementation of special sequences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the need for accurate bone segmentation in MR-based AC for whole-body PET/MR imaging. METHODS: In 22 patients undergoing sequential PET/CT and 3-T MR imaging, modified CT AC maps were produced by replacing pixels with values of >100 HU, representing mostly bone structures, by pixels with a constant value of 36 HU corresponding to soft tissue, thereby simulating current MR-derived AC maps. A total of 141 FDG-positive osseous lesions and 50 soft-tissue lesions adjacent to bones were evaluated. The mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) was measured in each lesion in PET images reconstructed once using the standard AC maps and once using the modified AC maps. Subsequently, the errors in lesion tracer uptake for the modified PET images were calculated using the standard PET image as a reference. RESULTS: Substitution of bone by soft tissue values in AC maps resulted in an underestimation of tracer uptake in osseous and soft tissue lesions adjacent to bones of 11.2 ± 5.4% (range 1.5-30.8%) and 3.2 ± 1.7% (range 0.2-4%), respectively. Analysis of the spine and pelvic osseous lesions revealed a substantial dependence of the error on lesion composition. For predominantly sclerotic spine lesions, the mean underestimation was 15.9 ± 3.4% (range 9.9-23.5%) and for osteolytic spine lesions, 7.2 ± 1.7% (range 4.9-9.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: CT data simulating treating bone as soft tissue as is currently done in MR maps for PET AC leads to a substantial underestimation of tracer uptake in bone lesions and depends on lesion composition, the largest error being seen in sclerotic lesions. Therefore, depiction of cortical bone and other calcified areas in MR AC maps is necessary for accurate quantification of tracer uptake values in PET/MR imaging.
PURPOSE: Accurate attenuation correction (AC) is essential for quantitative analysis of PET tracer distribution. In MR, the lack of cortical bone signal makes bone segmentation difficult and may require implementation of special sequences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the need for accurate bone segmentation in MR-based AC for whole-body PET/MR imaging. METHODS: In 22 patients undergoing sequential PET/CT and 3-T MR imaging, modified CT AC maps were produced by replacing pixels with values of >100 HU, representing mostly bone structures, by pixels with a constant value of 36 HU corresponding to soft tissue, thereby simulating current MR-derived AC maps. A total of 141 FDG-positive osseous lesions and 50 soft-tissue lesions adjacent to bones were evaluated. The mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) was measured in each lesion in PET images reconstructed once using the standard AC maps and once using the modified AC maps. Subsequently, the errors in lesion tracer uptake for the modified PET images were calculated using the standard PET image as a reference. RESULTS: Substitution of bone by soft tissue values in AC maps resulted in an underestimation of tracer uptake in osseous and soft tissue lesions adjacent to bones of 11.2 ± 5.4% (range 1.5-30.8%) and 3.2 ± 1.7% (range 0.2-4%), respectively. Analysis of the spine and pelvic osseous lesions revealed a substantial dependence of the error on lesion composition. For predominantly sclerotic spine lesions, the mean underestimation was 15.9 ± 3.4% (range 9.9-23.5%) and for osteolytic spine lesions, 7.2 ± 1.7% (range 4.9-9.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: CT data simulating treating bone as soft tissue as is currently done in MR maps for PET AC leads to a substantial underestimation of tracer uptake in bone lesions and depends on lesion composition, the largest error being seen in sclerotic lesions. Therefore, depiction of cortical bone and other calcified areas in MR AC maps is necessary for accurate quantification of tracer uptake values in PET/MR imaging.
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Markus Weigert; Harald H Quick; Uwe Pietrzyk; Florian Vogt; Christoph Palm; Gerald Antoch; Stefan P Müller; Andreas Bockisch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Irene A Burger; Dominic M Huser; Cyrill Burger; Gustav K von Schulthess; Alfred Buck Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Vincent Keereman; Yves Fierens; Tom Broux; Yves De Deene; Max Lonneux; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Andre van der Kouwe; Thomas Benner; Christian J Michel; Michael Hamm; Matthias Fenchel; Bruce Fischl; Bruce Rosen; Matthias Schmand; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ingo Einspieler; Klaus Thürmel; Thomas Pyka; Matthias Eiber; Sabine Wolfram; Philipp Moog; Christian Reeps; Markus Essler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew P Leynes; Jaewon Yang; Florian Wiesinger; Sandeep S Kaushik; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Youngho Seo; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Pengjiang Qian; Yangyang Chen; Jung-Wen Kuo; Yu-Dong Zhang; Yizhang Jiang; Kaifa Zhao; Rose Al Helo; Harry Friel; Atallah Baydoun; Feifei Zhou; Jin Uk Heo; Norbert Avril; Karin Herrmann; Rodney Ellis; Bryan Traughber; Robert S Jones; Shitong Wang; Kuan-Hao Su; Raymond F Muzic Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Sasan Partovi; Andres Kohan; Christian Rubbert; Jose Luis Vercher-Conejero; Chiara Gaeta; Roger Yuh; Lisa Zipp; Karin A Herrmann; Mark R Robbin; Zhenghong Lee; Raymond F Muzic; Peter Faulhaber; Pablo R Ros Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-20
Authors: Jorge D Oldan; Shetal N Shah; Richard C Brunken; Frank P DiFilippo; Nancy A Obuchowski; Michael A Bolen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jinsong Ouyang; Yoann Petibon; Chuan Huang; Timothy G Reese; Aleksandra L Kolnick; Georges El Fakhri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2014-11-03
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057