PURPOSE: To compare anatomic alignment between morphologic and positron emission tomography (PET) images acquired in the abdomen and pelvis by using simultaneous magnetic resonance (MR)/PET, PET/computed tomography (CT), and retrospective MR/PET fusion and to compare alignment between MR and PET in simultaneous and sequential thoracic MR/PET by using different breathing, registration, and gating protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent and institutional review board approval were obtained. The misalignment in 28 abdominal patient datasets was analyzed in simultaneous MR/PET, PET/CT, and retrospective MR/PET fusion. In seven thoracic MR/PET datasets, the effect of different breathing protocols, simultaneous, sequential, and MR-gated data acquisition was evaluated, and the effect of rigid registration versus nonregistered images was evaluated. Analysis of variance and subsequent Tukey test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The misalignment in all abdominal organs was reduced in simultaneous MR/PET compared with retrospectively fused MR and PET images (means, 5.8 mm vs 11.9 mm; P < .001), and in the urinary bladder compared with PET/CT (means, 5.9 mm vs 11.0 mm; P < .007). Thoracic MR/PET with inspiratory breath-hold MR showed the largest misalignment (mean, 24.5 mm; P < .001). None of the other thoracic protocols that were composed of different acquisition, registration, or gating procedures differed significantly from one another. CONCLUSION: The alignment of hybrid datasets acquired in simultaneous whole-body MR/PET was more accurate than retrospective fusion in all investigated abdominal organs, and more accurate than PET/CT in the urinary bladder; the alignment of thoracic MR/PET with expiratory breath hold or free-breathing MR was more exact than with inspiratory MR. However in this preliminary work the clinical importance of these degrees of misalignment was not assessed.
PURPOSE: To compare anatomic alignment between morphologic and positron emission tomography (PET) images acquired in the abdomen and pelvis by using simultaneous magnetic resonance (MR)/PET, PET/computed tomography (CT), and retrospective MR/PET fusion and to compare alignment between MR and PET in simultaneous and sequential thoracic MR/PET by using different breathing, registration, and gating protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent and institutional review board approval were obtained. The misalignment in 28 abdominal patient datasets was analyzed in simultaneous MR/PET, PET/CT, and retrospective MR/PET fusion. In seven thoracic MR/PET datasets, the effect of different breathing protocols, simultaneous, sequential, and MR-gated data acquisition was evaluated, and the effect of rigid registration versus nonregistered images was evaluated. Analysis of variance and subsequent Tukey test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The misalignment in all abdominal organs was reduced in simultaneous MR/PET compared with retrospectively fused MR and PET images (means, 5.8 mm vs 11.9 mm; P < .001), and in the urinary bladder compared with PET/CT (means, 5.9 mm vs 11.0 mm; P < .007). Thoracic MR/PET with inspiratory breath-hold MR showed the largest misalignment (mean, 24.5 mm; P < .001). None of the other thoracic protocols that were composed of different acquisition, registration, or gating procedures differed significantly from one another. CONCLUSION: The alignment of hybrid datasets acquired in simultaneous whole-body MR/PET was more accurate than retrospective fusion in all investigated abdominal organs, and more accurate than PET/CT in the urinary bladder; the alignment of thoracic MR/PET with expiratory breath hold or free-breathing MR was more exact than with inspiratory MR. However in this preliminary work the clinical importance of these degrees of misalignment was not assessed.
Authors: Lisa A Min; Wouter V Vogel; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Maarten L Donswijk; Erik Vegt; Miranda Kusters; Henry J Zijlmans; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Sander Roberti; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Arjun V Balar; William C Huang; Kimberly Jackson; Kent P Friedman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jana Taron; Christina Schraml; Christina Pfannenberg; Matthias Reimold; Nina Schwenzer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Petros Martirosian; Ferdinand Seith Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent P Friedman; Fabio Ponzo; Roy A Raad; Kimberly Jackson; William C Huang; Arjun V Balar Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794