Literature DB >> 23296082

Preclinical evaluation of MR attenuation correction versus CT attenuation correction on a sequential whole-body MR/PET scanner.

Jason Bini1, David Izquierdo-Garcia, Jesus Mateo, Josef Machac, Jagat Narula, Valentin Fuster, Zahi A Fayad.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The application of attenuation correction for combined magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography (MR/PET) systems is still a major challenge for accurate quantitative PET. Computed tomographic attenuation correction (CTAC) is the current clinical standard for PET/computed tomographic (CT) scans. Magnetic resonance, unlike CT, has no direct information about photon attenuation but, rather, proton densities. On combined MR/PET scanners, MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) consists of assigning empirical attenuation coefficients to MR signal intensities. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the MRAC implemented on the combined MR/PET scanner versus the CTAC with the same PET data in an animal model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acquisition was performed using a clinically approved sequential MR/PET scanner (Philips Ingenuity TF). Computed tomographic and MR/PET images of 20 New Zealand White rabbits were retrospectively analyzed. The animals were positioned on a customized animal bed to avoid movement between the CT and MR/PET scanners. Positron emission tomographic images from both methods (MRAC and CTAC) were generated. Voxel-by-voxel and region-of-interest (ROI) analyses were performed to determine differences in standardized uptake values (SUV). Regions of interest were drawn on the coregistered CT images for the aorta, liver, kidney, spine, and soft tissue (muscle) and superimposed on the PET images.
RESULTS: The voxel-by-voxel comparison of PET showed excellent correlation between MRAC and CTAC SUV values (R = 0.99; P < 0.0001). The mean of the difference of SUVs between all respective MRAC and CTAC voxels was -0.94% (absolute difference [AD] ± SD, -0.06 ± 0.30), confirming slight underestimation of MRAC. The ROI-based comparison similarly showed that MRAC SUV values were underestimated compared with CTAC SUV values. The mean difference between MRAC and CTAC for all ROIs was 10.8% (AD, -0.08 ± 0.06; R = 0.99; P < 0.0001) and -9.7% (AD, -0.15 ± 0.12; R = 0.99; P < 0.0001) for the SUV mean (SUV mean) and the SUV maximum (SUV max), respectively. The highest differences were found in the spine (SUV mean -26.1% [-0.11]) and areas close to large bones such as the back muscles (SUV mean, -16.8% [-0.04]).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we have compared MRAC and CTAC methods for PET attenuation correction in an animal model. We have confirmed that the MRAC method implemented on a sequential MR/PET scanner underestimates PET values by less than 10% in most regions, except the areas containing or close to large bone structures such as the spine or the back muscles. Bone segmentation is therefore suggested to be included in the MR attenuation map to minimize the quantification error of MRAC methods compared with the clinical standard CTAC. Further clinical studies need to be carried out to validate the clinical use of MRAC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23296082      PMCID: PMC3638002          DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827a49ba

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  26 in total

1.  An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  V Bettinardi; E Pagani; M C Gilardi; C Landoni; C Riddell; G Rizzo; I Castiglioni; D Belluzzo; G Lucignani; S Schubert; F Fazio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-05

2.  Simulation of a MR-PET protocol for staging of head-and-neck cancer including Dixon MR for attenuation correction.

Authors:  Matthias Eiber; Michael Souvatzoglou; Anja Pickhard; Denys J Loeffelbein; Andreas Knopf; Konstantin Holzapfel; Axel Martinez-Möller; Stephan G Nekolla; Elias Q Scherer; Markus Schwaiger; Ernst J Rummeny; Ambros J Beer
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 3.  X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Bruce H Hasegawa; Thomas Beyer
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.446

4.  MR-based attenuation correction for torso-PET/MR imaging: pitfalls in mapping MR to CT data.

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

5.  MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI: a novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration.

Authors:  Matthias Hofmann; Florian Steinke; Verena Scheel; Guillaume Charpiat; Jason Farquhar; Philip Aschoff; Michael Brady; Bernhard Schölkopf; Bernd J Pichler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  P E Kinahan; D W Townsend; T Beyer; D Sashin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Attenuation correction using count-limited transmission data in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  S R Meikle; M Dahlbom; S R Cherry
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Simultaneous PET and MR imaging.

Authors:  Y Shao; S R Cherry; K Farahani; K Meadors; S Siegel; R W Silverman; P K Marsden
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Noninvasive in vivo measurement of vascular inflammation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Ahmed Tawakol; Raymond Q Migrino; Udo Hoffmann; Suhny Abbara; Stuart Houser; Henry Gewirtz; James E Muller; Thomas J Brady; Alan J Fischman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.952

10.  PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients.

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

View more
  15 in total

1.  N staging of lung cancer patients with PET/MRI using a three-segment model attenuation correction algorithm: initial experience.

Authors:  A A Kohan; J A Kolthammer; J L Vercher-Conejero; C Rubbert; S Partovi; R Jones; K A Herrmann; P Faulhaber
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [(18)F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: comparison with [(18)F]choline PET/CT.

Authors:  Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Philipp Heusch; Herbert Rübben; Jens-Christian Altenbernd; Thomas Schlosser; Andreas Bockisch; Thorsten Pöppel; Thomas Lauenstein; James Nagarajah
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Comparison of MR-based attenuation correction and CT-based attenuation correction of whole-body PET/MR imaging.

Authors:  David Izquierdo-Garcia; Stephen J Sawiak; Karin Knesaurek; Jagat Narula; Valentin Fuster; Joseph Machac; Zahi A Fayad
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Quantitative carotid PET/MR imaging: clinical evaluation of MR-Attenuation correction versus CT-Attenuation correction in (18)F-FDG PET/MR emission data and comparison to PET/CT.

Authors:  Jason Bini; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Mootaz Eldib; Zahi A Fayad
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-02-15

5.  Clinical assessment of MR-guided 3-class and 4-class attenuation correction in PET/MR.

Authors:  Hossein Arabi; Olivier Rager; Asma Alem; Arthur Varoquaux; Minerva Becker; Habib Zaidi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 6.  Advances in PET/MR instrumentation and image reconstruction.

Authors:  Jorge Cabello; Sibylle I Ziegler
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Attenuation correction for flexible magnetic resonance coils in combined magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography imaging.

Authors:  Mootaz Eldib; Jason Bini; Claudia Calcagno; Philip M Robson; Venkatesh Mani; Zahi A Fayad
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Simultaneous carotid PET/MR: feasibility and improvement of magnetic resonance-based attenuation correction.

Authors:  Jason Bini; Mootaz Eldib; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Zahi A Fayad
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 9.  MR Imaging-Guided Attenuation Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  David Izquierdo-Garcia; Ciprian Catana
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2016-01-26

10.  Image quality assessment of automatic three-segment MR attenuation correction vs. CT attenuation correction.

Authors:  Sasan Partovi; Andres Kohan; Chiara Gaeta; Christian Rubbert; Jose L Vercher-Conejero; Robert S Jones; James K O'Donnell; Patrick Wojtylak; Peter Faulhaber
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-04-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.