Literature DB >> 23638340

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

Sasan Partovi1, Andres Kohan, Chiara Gaeta, Christian Rubbert, Jose L Vercher-Conejero, Robert S Jones, James K O'Donnell, Patrick Wojtylak, Peter Faulhaber.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the usefulness of Positron emission tomography/Magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) images in a clinical setting by assessing the image quality of Positron emission tomography (PET) images using a three-segment MR attenuation correction (MRAC) versus the standard CT attenuation correction (CTAC). We prospectively studied 48 patients who had their clinically scheduled FDG-PET/CT followed by an FDG-PET/MRI. Three nuclear radiologists evaluated the image quality of CTAC vs. MRAC using a Likert scale (five-point scale). A two-sided, paired t-test was performed for comparison purposes. The image quality was further assessed by categorizing it as acceptable (equal to 4 and 5 on the five-point Likert scale) or unacceptable (equal to 1, 2, and 3 on the five-point Likert scale) quality using the McNemar test. When assessing the image quality using the Likert scale, one reader observed a significant difference between CTAC and MRAC (p=0.0015), whereas the other readers did not observe a difference (p=0.8924 and p=0.1880, respectively). When performing the grouping analysis, no significant difference was found between CTAC vs. MRAC for any of the readers (p=0.6137 for reader 1, p=1 for reader 2, and p=0.8137 for reader 3). All three readers more often reported artifacts on the MRAC images than on the CTAC images. There was no clinically significant difference in quality between PET images generated on a PET/MRI system and those from a Positron emission tomography/Computed tomography (PET/CT) system. PET images using the automatic three-segmented MR attenuation method provided diagnostic image quality. However, future research regarding the image quality obtained using different MR attenuation based methods is warranted before PET/MRI can be used clinically.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FDG; PET/CT; PET/MRI; attenuation correction; hybrid imaging; image quality

Year:  2013        PMID: 23638340      PMCID: PMC3627525     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging


  38 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  The effect of errors in segmented attenuation maps on PET quantification.

Authors:  Vincent Keereman; Roel Van Holen; Pieter Mollet; Stefaan Vandenberghe
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Clinical Application of MR Spectroscopy and Imaging of Brain Tumor.

Authors:  Naomi Morita; Masafumi Harada; Hideki Otsuka; Elias R Melhem; Hiromu Nishitani
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.471

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.  Studies of restricted diffusion in heterogeneous media containing variations in susceptibility.

Authors:  J H Zhong; J C Gore
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI using ultrashort echo time sequences.

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

7.  Quantifying sclerotic bone metastases with 2D ultra short TE MRI: a feasibility study.

Authors:  C Messiou; D J Collins; V A Morgan; M D Robson; J S deBono; G M Bydder; N M deSouza
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.388

8.  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

9.  Quantitative accuracy of attenuation correction in the Philips Ingenuity TF whole-body PET/MR system: a direct comparison with transmission-based attenuation correction.

Authors:  Georg Schramm; Jens Langner; Frank Hofheinz; Jan Petr; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Ivan Platzek; Jörg Steinbach; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 2.310

10.  Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology.

Authors:  Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-12-24       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  Qualitative and quantitative performance of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/MRI versus ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  S Partovi; A Kohan; J L Vercher-Conejero; C Rubbert; S Margevicius; M D Schluchter; C Gaeta; P Faulhaber; M R Robbin
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Non-invasive diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Pier Paolo Mainenti; Federica Romano; Laura Pizzuti; Sabrina Segreto; Giovanni Storto; Lorenzo Mannelli; Massimo Imbriaco; Luigi Camera; Simone Maurea
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-28

4.  Impact of PET acquisition durations on image quality and lesion detectability in whole-body 68Ga-PSMA PET-MRI.

Authors:  Benjamin Noto; Florian Büther; Katharina Auf der Springe; Nemanja Avramovic; Walter Heindel; Michael Schäfers; Thomas Allkemper; Lars Stegger
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 3.138

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.