PURPOSE: Clinical PET/MR acquisition protocols entail the use of MR contrast agents (MRCA) that could potentially affect PET quantification following MR-based attenuation correction (AC). We assessed the effect of oral and intravenous (IV) MRCA on PET quantification in PET/MR imaging. METHODS: We employed two MRCA: Lumirem (oral) and Gadovist (IV). First, we determined their reference PET attenuation values using a PET transmission scan (ECAT-EXACT HR+, Siemens) and a CT scan (PET/CT Biograph 16 HI-REZ, Siemens). Second, we evaluated the attenuation of PET signals in the presence of MRCA. Phantoms were filled with clinically relevant concentrations of MRCA in a background of water and (18)F-fluoride, and imaged using a PET/CT scanner (Biograph 16 HI-REZ, Siemens) and a PET/MR scanner (Biograph mMR, Siemens). Third, we investigated the effect of clinically relevant volumes of MRCA on MR-based AC using human pilot data: a patient study employing Gadovist (IV) and a volunteer study employing two different oral MRCA (Lumirem and pineapple juice). MR-based attenuation maps were calculated following Dixon-based fat-water segmentation and an external atlas-based and pattern recognition (AT&PR) algorithm. RESULTS: IV and oral MRCA in clinically relevant concentrations were found to have PET attenuation values similar to those of water. The phantom experiments showed that under clinical conditions IV and oral MRCA did not yield additional attenuation of PET emission signals. Patient scans showed that PET attenuation maps are not biased after the administration of IV MRCA but may be biased, however, after ingestion of iron oxide-based oral MRCA when segmentation-based AC algorithms are used. Alternative AC algorithms, such as AT&PR, or alternative oral contrast agents, such as pineapple juice, can yield unbiased attenuation maps. CONCLUSION: In clinical PET/MR scenarios MRCA are not expected to lead to markedly increased attenuation of the PET emission signals. MR-based attenuation maps may be biased by oral iron oxide-based MRCA unless advanced AC algorithms are used.
PURPOSE: Clinical PET/MR acquisition protocols entail the use of MR contrast agents (MRCA) that could potentially affect PET quantification following MR-based attenuation correction (AC). We assessed the effect of oral and intravenous (IV) MRCA on PET quantification in PET/MR imaging. METHODS: We employed two MRCA: Lumirem (oral) and Gadovist (IV). First, we determined their reference PET attenuation values using a PET transmission scan (ECAT-EXACT HR+, Siemens) and a CT scan (PET/CT Biograph 16 HI-REZ, Siemens). Second, we evaluated the attenuation of PET signals in the presence of MRCA. Phantoms were filled with clinically relevant concentrations of MRCA in a background of water and (18)F-fluoride, and imaged using a PET/CT scanner (Biograph 16 HI-REZ, Siemens) and a PET/MR scanner (Biograph mMR, Siemens). Third, we investigated the effect of clinically relevant volumes of MRCA on MR-based AC using human pilot data: a patient study employing Gadovist (IV) and a volunteer study employing two different oral MRCA (Lumirem and pineapple juice). MR-based attenuation maps were calculated following Dixon-based fat-water segmentation and an external atlas-based and pattern recognition (AT&PR) algorithm. RESULTS: IV and oral MRCA in clinically relevant concentrations were found to have PET attenuation values similar to those of water. The phantom experiments showed that under clinical conditions IV and oral MRCA did not yield additional attenuation of PET emission signals. Patient scans showed that PET attenuation maps are not biased after the administration of IV MRCA but may be biased, however, after ingestion of iron oxide-based oral MRCA when segmentation-based AC algorithms are used. Alternative AC algorithms, such as AT&PR, or alternative oral contrast agents, such as pineapple juice, can yield unbiased attenuation maps. CONCLUSION: In clinical PET/MR scenarios MRCA are not expected to lead to markedly increased attenuation of the PET emission signals. MR-based attenuation maps may be biased by oral iron oxide-based MRCA unless advanced AC algorithms are used.
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Lutz S Freudenberg; Thomas Egelhof; Jörg Stattaus; Walter Jentzen; Jörg F Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marco Brambilla; Chiara Secco; Marco Dominietto; Roberta Matheoud; Gianmauro Sacchetti; Eugenio Inglese Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P F Hahn; D D Stark; J M Lewis; S Saini; G Elizondo; R Weissleder; C J Fretz; J T Ferrucci Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: L Arrivé; C Coudray; L Azizi; M Lewin; C Hoeffel; L Monnier-Cholley; C Lacombe; S Vautier; J Poupon; J M Tubiana Journal: J Radiol Date: 2007-11
Authors: Verena Ruhlmann; Philipp Heusch; Hilmar Kühl; Karsten Beiderwellen; Gerald Antoch; Michael Forsting; Andreas Bockisch; Christian Buchbender; Harald H Quick Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Ronald Jh Borra; Hoon-Sung Cho; Spencer L Bowen; Ulrike Attenberger; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Lee Josephson; Bruce R Rosen; Alexander R Guimaraes; Jacob M Hooker Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-02-26
Authors: Joseph Lillington; Ludovica Brusaferri; Kerstin Kläser; Karin Shmueli; Radhouene Neji; Brian F Hutton; Francesco Fraioli; Simon Arridge; Manuel Jorge Cardoso; Sebastien Ourselin; Kris Thielemans; David Atkinson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.071