PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the built-in MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) included in the combined whole-body Ingenuity TF PET/MR scanner and compare it to the performance of CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) as the gold standard. METHODS: Included in the study were 26 patients who underwent clinical whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging and subsequently PET/MR imaging (mean delay 100 min). Patients were separated into two groups: the alpha group (14 patients) without MR coils during PET/MR imaging and the beta group (12 patients) with MR coils present (neurovascular, spine, cardiac and torso coils). All images were coregistered to the same space (PET/MR). The two PET images from PET/MR reconstructed using MRAC and CTAC were compared by voxel-based and region-based methods (with ten regions of interest, ROIs). Lesions were also compared by an experienced clinician. RESULTS: Body mass index and lung density showed significant differences between the alpha and beta groups. Right and left lung densities were also significantly different within each group. The percentage differences in uptake values using MRAC in relation to those using CTAC were greater in the beta group than in the alpha group (alpha group -0.2 ± 33.6%, R(2) = 0.98, p < 0.001; beta group 10.31 ± 69.86%, R(2) = 0.97, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison to CTAC, MRAC led to underestimation of the PET values by less than 10% on average, although some ROIs and lesions did differ by more (including the spine, lung and heart). The beta group (imaged with coils present) showed increased overall PET quantification as well as increased variability compared to the alpha group (imaged without coils). PET data reconstructed with MRAC and CTAC showed some differences, mostly in relation to air pockets, metallic implants and attenuation differences in large bone areas (such as the pelvis and spine) due to the segmentation limitation of the MRAC method.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the built-in MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) included in the combined whole-body Ingenuity TF PET/MR scanner and compare it to the performance of CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) as the gold standard. METHODS: Included in the study were 26 patients who underwent clinical whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging and subsequently PET/MR imaging (mean delay 100 min). Patients were separated into two groups: the alpha group (14 patients) without MR coils during PET/MR imaging and the beta group (12 patients) with MR coils present (neurovascular, spine, cardiac and torso coils). All images were coregistered to the same space (PET/MR). The two PET images from PET/MR reconstructed using MRAC and CTAC were compared by voxel-based and region-based methods (with ten regions of interest, ROIs). Lesions were also compared by an experienced clinician. RESULTS: Body mass index and lung density showed significant differences between the alpha and beta groups. Right and left lung densities were also significantly different within each group. The percentage differences in uptake values using MRAC in relation to those using CTAC were greater in the beta group than in the alpha group (alpha group -0.2 ± 33.6%, R(2) = 0.98, p < 0.001; beta group 10.31 ± 69.86%, R(2) = 0.97, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison to CTAC, MRAC led to underestimation of the PET values by less than 10% on average, although some ROIs and lesions did differ by more (including the spine, lung and heart). The beta group (imaged with coils present) showed increased overall PET quantification as well as increased variability compared to the alpha group (imaged without coils). PET data reconstructed with MRAC and CTAC showed some differences, mostly in relation to air pockets, metallic implants and attenuation differences in large bone areas (such as the pelvis and spine) due to the segmentation limitation of the MRAC method.
Authors: G Delso; A Martinez-Möller; R A Bundschuh; R Ladebeck; Y Candidus; D Faul; S I Ziegler Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
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
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: David Izquierdo-Garcia; John R Davies; Martin J Graves; James H F Rudd; Jonathan H Gillard; Peter L Weissberg; Tim D Fryer; Elizabeth A Warburton Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Jorge D Oldan; Shetal N Shah; Richard C Brunken; Frank P DiFilippo; Nancy A Obuchowski; Michael A Bolen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jan Vontobel; Riccardo Liga; Mathias Possner; Olivier F Clerc; Fran Mikulicic; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Dominik C Benz; Christoph Gräni; Oliver Gaemperli; Bernhard Herzog; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Kuan-Hao Su; Lingzhi Hu; Christian Stehning; Michael Helle; Pengjiang Qian; Cheryl L Thompson; Gisele C Pereira; David W Jordan; Karin A Herrmann; Melanie Traughber; Raymond F Muzic; Bryan J Traughber Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Zeynab Alshelh; Daniel S Albrecht; Courtney Bergan; Oluwaseun Akeju; Daniel J Clauw; Lisa Conboy; Robert R Edwards; Minhae Kim; Yvonne C Lee; Ekaterina Protsenko; Vitaly Napadow; Kimberly Sullivan; Marco L Loggia Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Holger Schmidt; Sergios Gatidis; Ilja Bezrukov; Christina Schraml; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Nina Schwenzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240