Literature DB >> 23296642

PET/MR imaging of the pelvis in the presence of endoprostheses: reducing image artifacts and increasing accuracy through inpainting.

Claes Nøhr Ladefoged1, Flemming Littrup Andersen, Sune Høgild Keller, Johan Löfgren, Adam Espe Hansen, Søren Holm, Liselotte Højgaard, Thomas Beyer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In combined whole-body PET/MR, attenuation correction (AC) is performed indirectly using the available MR image information and subsequent segmentation. Implant-induced susceptibility artifacts and subsequent signal voids may challenge MR-based AC (MR-AC). We evaluated the accuracy of MR-AC in PET/MR in patients with metallic endoprostheses, and propose a clinically feasible correction method.
METHODS: We selected patients with uni- or bilateral endoprostheses from 61 consecutive referrals for whole-body PET/MR imaging (mMR; Siemens Healthcare). Simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging was performed at 120 min after injection of about 300 MBq [(18)F]FDG. MR-AC was performed using (1) original MR images and subsequent Dixon water-fat segmentation, (2) as method 1 with implant-induced signal voids filled with soft tissue, (3) as method 2 with superimposed coregistered endoprostheses from the CT scan, and (4) as method 1 with implant-induced signal voids filled with metal. Following MR-AC (methods 1-4) PET emission images were reconstructed on 344 × 344 matrices using attenuation-weighted OSEM (three iterations, 21 subsets, 4 mm gaussian). Maximum body-weight normalized standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were obtained for both hips. Mean SUV (SUVmean) in homogeneous reference regions in the gluteal muscle and bladder following MR-AC (methods 1-4) are also reported.
RESULTS: In total, four patients presented with endoprostheses, unilateral in two and bilateral in two. The fraction of voxels in MR images affected by the implant was at least twice that of the voxels representing the actual implants. MR-AC using methods 2 and 3 recovered the FDG distribution pattern compared to uncorrected PET images and method 1, while method 4 resulted in severe overestimation of FDG uptake (>460 % SUVmax). When compared to method 1, relative changes in SUVmean in the reference regions from method 2 and 3 were generally small albeit not correlated with the fraction of the attenuation image affected by implant-induced artifacts.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoprostheses cause PET/MR artifacts that exceed the volume occupied by the implants, and bias PET quantification. Artifacts and bias can be corrected by semiautomated inpainting with soft tissue with a single composition prior to MR-AC, thus restoring quantitative activity distribution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23296642     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2316-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  24 in total

1.  Frequency split metal artifact reduction (FSMAR) in computed tomography.

Authors:  Esther Meyer; Rainer Raupach; Michael Lell; Bernhard Schmidt; Marc Kachelrieß
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Role of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in focal and generalized infectious and inflammatory disorders.

Authors:  Athar Haroon; Alimuddin Zumla; Jamshed Bomanji
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 9.079

3.  MRI of hip prostheses using single-point methods: in vitro studies towards the artifact-free imaging of individuals with metal implants.

Authors:  P Ramos-Cabrer; J P M van Duynhoven; A Van der Toorn; K Nicolay
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 4.  Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques.

Authors:  Matthias Hofmann; Bernd Pichler; Bernhard Schölkopf; Thomas Beyer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner.

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

Review 6.  18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic imaging in the detection and monitoring of infection and inflammation.

Authors:  Hongming Zhuang; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.446

7.  "Anatometabolic" tumor imaging: fusion of FDG PET with CT or MRI to localize foci of increased activity.

Authors:  R L Wahl; L E Quint; R D Cieslak; A M Aisen; R A Koeppe; C R Meyer
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Use of 18F-FDG-PET in the diagnosis of endoprosthetic loosening of knee and hip implants.

Authors:  Susanne Mayer-Wagner; Wolfgang Mayer; Sonja Maegerlein; Rainer Linke; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  The future of hybrid imaging-part 3: PET/MR, small-animal imaging and beyond.

Authors:  Thomas Beyer; Lutz S Freudenberg; Johannes Czernin; David W Townsend
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-03-25

10.  The future of hybrid imaging-part 1: hybrid imaging technologies and SPECT/CT.

Authors:  Thomas Beyer; Lutz S Freudenberg; David W Townsend; Johannes Czernin
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-01-29
View more
  15 in total

1.  [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography after limb salvage surgery: post-surgical appearance, attenuation correction and local complications.

Authors:  Michael J Gelfand; Susan E Sharp
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27

2.  Automatic correction of dental artifacts in PET/MRI.

Authors:  Claes N Ladefoged; Flemming L Andersen; Sune H Keller; Thomas Beyer; Ian Law; Liselotte Højgaard; Sune Darkner; Francois Lauze
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-06-09

3.  Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience.

Authors:  Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Sangtae Ahn; Florian Wiesinger; M Mehdi Khalighi; Craig S Levin; Andrei H Iagaru; Greg Zaharchuk; Martin Huellner; Gaspar Delso
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  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 5.  Applications of PET-Computed Tomography-Magnetic Resonance in the Management of Benign Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Authors:  James S Yoder; Feliks Kogan; Garry E Gold
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2019-01

6.  The effect of metal artefact reduction on CT-based attenuation correction for PET imaging in the vicinity of metallic hip implants: a phantom study.

Authors:  Roy Harnish; Sven Prevrhal; Abass Alavi; Habib Zaidi; Thomas F Lang
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 2.668

7.  PET/MRI in the Presence of Metal Implants: Completion of the Attenuation Map from PET Emission Data.

Authors:  Niccolo Fuin; Stefano Pedemonte; Onofrio A Catalano; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Keith Heberlein; Jacob M Hooker; Koen Van Leemput; Ciprian Catana
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  [Value of new MR techniques in MR-PET].

Authors:  U I Attenberger; H H Quick; A Guimaraes; O Catalano; J N Morelli; S O Schoenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.