John C Dickson1, Celia O'Meara, Anna Barnes. 1. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK, john.dickson@uclh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the quantitative accuracy of current MR attenuation correction (AC) methods in neurological PET, in comparison to data derived using CT AC. METHODS: This retrospective study included 25 patients who were referred for a neurological FDG PET examination and were imaged sequentially by PET/CT and simultaneous PET/MR. Differences between activity concentrations derived using Dixon and ultrashort echo time (UTE) MR-based AC and those derived from CT AC were compared using volume of interest and voxel-based approaches. The same comparisons were also made using PET data represented as SUV ratios (SUVr) using grey matter cerebellum as the reference region. RESULTS: Extensive and statistically significant regional underestimations of activity concentrations were found with both Dixon AC (P < 0.001) and UTE AC (P < 0.001) in all brain regions when compared to CT AC. The greatest differences were found in the cortical grey matter (Dixon AC 21.3%, UTE AC 15.7%) and cerebellum (Dixon AC 19.8%, UTE AC 17.3%). The underestimation using UTE AC was significantly less than with Dixon AC (P < 0.001) in most regions. Voxel-based comparisons showed that all cortical grey matter and cerebellum uptake was underestimated with Dixon AC compared to CT AC. Using UTE AC the extent and significance of these differences were reduced. Inaccuracies in cerebellar activity concentrations led to a mixture of predominantly cortical underestimation and subcortical overestimation in SUVr PET data for both MR AC methodologies. CONCLUSION: MR-based AC results in significant underestimation of activity concentrations throughout the brain, which makes the use of SUVr data difficult. These effects limit the quantitative accuracy of neurological PET/MR.
PURPOSE: To assess the quantitative accuracy of current MR attenuation correction (AC) methods in neurological PET, in comparison to data derived using CT AC. METHODS: This retrospective study included 25 patients who were referred for a neurological FDG PET examination and were imaged sequentially by PET/CT and simultaneous PET/MR. Differences between activity concentrations derived using Dixon and ultrashort echo time (UTE) MR-based AC and those derived from CT AC were compared using volume of interest and voxel-based approaches. The same comparisons were also made using PET data represented as SUV ratios (SUVr) using grey matter cerebellum as the reference region. RESULTS: Extensive and statistically significant regional underestimations of activity concentrations were found with both Dixon AC (P < 0.001) and UTE AC (P < 0.001) in all brain regions when compared to CT AC. The greatest differences were found in the cortical grey matter (Dixon AC 21.3%, UTE AC 15.7%) and cerebellum (Dixon AC 19.8%, UTE AC 17.3%). The underestimation using UTE AC was significantly less than with Dixon AC (P < 0.001) in most regions. Voxel-based comparisons showed that all cortical grey matter and cerebellum uptake was underestimated with Dixon AC compared to CT AC. Using UTE AC the extent and significance of these differences were reduced. Inaccuracies in cerebellar activity concentrations led to a mixture of predominantly cortical underestimation and subcortical overestimation in SUVr PET data for both MR AC methodologies. CONCLUSION: MR-based AC results in significant underestimation of activity concentrations throughout the brain, which makes the use of SUVr data difficult. These effects limit the quantitative accuracy of neurological PET/MR.
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
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Andre van der Kouwe; Thomas Benner; Christian J Michel; Michael Hamm; Matthias Fenchel; Bruce Fischl; Bruce Rosen; Matthias Schmand; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Yuji Nakamoto; Medhat Osman; Christian Cohade; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Steve Kohlmyer; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Pengjiang Qian; Yangyang Chen; Jung-Wen Kuo; Yu-Dong Zhang; Yizhang Jiang; Kaifa Zhao; Rose Al Helo; Harry Friel; Atallah Baydoun; Feifei Zhou; Jin Uk Heo; Norbert Avril; Karin Herrmann; Rodney Ellis; Bryan Traughber; Robert S Jones; Shitong Wang; Kuan-Hao Su; Raymond F Muzic Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Zhaolin Chen; Sharna D Jamadar; Shenpeng Li; Francesco Sforazzini; Jakub Baran; Nicholas Ferris; Nadim Jon Shah; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Lingzhi Hu; Kuan-Hao Su; Gisele C Pereira; Anu Grover; Bryan Traughber; Melanie Traughber; Raymond F Muzic Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jorge Cabello; Mathias Lukas; Elena Rota Kops; André Ribeiro; N Jon Shah; Igor Yakushev; Thomas Pyka; Stephan G Nekolla; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; Vibeke A Larsen; Aida Muhic; Adam E Hansen; Henrik B W Larsson; Hans S Poulsen; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 9.236