Stefan Hitz1, Cornelia Habekost1, Sebastian Fürst2, Gaspar Delso2, Stefan Förster3, Sibylle Ziegler2, Stephan G Nekolla2, Michael Souvatzoglou2, Ambros J Beer2, Timo Grimmer4, Matthias Eiber5, Markus Schwaiger2, Alexander Drzezga6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Stefan.c.hitz@gmail.com cornelia.habekost@gmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany TUM Neuroimaging Center (TUM-NIC), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; and. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Technologic specifications of recently introduced integrated PET/MR instrumentation, such as MR-based attenuation correction, may particularly affect brain imaging procedures. To evaluate the qualitative performance of PET/MR in clinical neuroimaging, we systematically compared results obtained with integrated PET/MR with conventional PET/CT in the same patients examined for assessment of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent a single-injection ((18)F-FDG), dual-imaging protocol including PET/CT and integrated PET/MR imaging in randomized order. Attenuation and scatter correction were performed using low-dose CT for the PET/CT and segmented Dixon MR imaging data for the PET/MR. Differences between PET/MR and PET/CT were assessed via region-of-interest (ROI)-based and voxel-based statistical group comparison. Analyses involved attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) data. Individual PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were compared versus a predefined independent control population, using 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projections. RESULTS: Generally, lower measured PET signal values were obtained throughout the brain in ROI-based quantification of the PET signal for PET/MR as compared with PET/CT in AC and NAC data, independently of the scan order. After elimination of global effects, voxel-based and ROI-based group comparison still revealed significantly lower relative tracer signal in PET/MR images in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex but significantly higher relative signal in subcortical and basal regions of the brain than the corresponding PET/CT images of the AC data. In the corresponding NAC images, the discrepancies in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex were diminished, but the subcortical overestimation of tracer intensity by PET/MR persisted. CONCLUSION: Considerable region-dependent differences were observed between brain imaging data acquired on the PET/MR, compared with corresponding PET/CT images, in patients evaluated for neurodegenerative disorders. These findings may only in part be explained by inconsistencies in the attenuation-correction procedures. The observed differences may interfere with semiquantitative evaluation and with individual qualitative clinical assessment and they need to be considered, for example, for clinical trials. Improved attenuation-correction algorithms and a PET/MR-specific healthy control database are recommended for reliable and consistent application of PET/MR for clinical neuroimaging.
UNLABELLED: Technologic specifications of recently introduced integrated PET/MR instrumentation, such as MR-based attenuation correction, may particularly affect brain imaging procedures. To evaluate the qualitative performance of PET/MR in clinical neuroimaging, we systematically compared results obtained with integrated PET/MR with conventional PET/CT in the same patients examined for assessment of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent a single-injection ((18)F-FDG), dual-imaging protocol including PET/CT and integrated PET/MR imaging in randomized order. Attenuation and scatter correction were performed using low-dose CT for the PET/CT and segmented Dixon MR imaging data for the PET/MR. Differences between PET/MR and PET/CT were assessed via region-of-interest (ROI)-based and voxel-based statistical group comparison. Analyses involved attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) data. Individual PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were compared versus a predefined independent control population, using 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projections. RESULTS: Generally, lower measured PET signal values were obtained throughout the brain in ROI-based quantification of the PET signal for PET/MR as compared with PET/CT in AC and NAC data, independently of the scan order. After elimination of global effects, voxel-based and ROI-based group comparison still revealed significantly lower relative tracer signal in PET/MR images in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex but significantly higher relative signal in subcortical and basal regions of the brain than the corresponding PET/CT images of the AC data. In the corresponding NAC images, the discrepancies in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex were diminished, but the subcortical overestimation of tracer intensity by PET/MR persisted. CONCLUSION: Considerable region-dependent differences were observed between brain imaging data acquired on the PET/MR, compared with corresponding PET/CT images, in patients evaluated for neurodegenerative disorders. These findings may only in part be explained by inconsistencies in the attenuation-correction procedures. The observed differences may interfere with semiquantitative evaluation and with individual qualitative clinical assessment and they need to be considered, for example, for clinical trials. Improved attenuation-correction algorithms and a PET/MR-specific healthy control database are recommended for reliable and consistent application of PET/MR for clinical neuroimaging.
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: 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: Shengwen Deng; Crystal G Franklin; Michael O'Boyle; Wei Zhang; Betty L Heyl; Paul A Jerabek; Hanzhang Lu; Peter T Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 7.400
Authors: D L Bailey; G Antoch; P Bartenstein; H Barthel; A J Beer; S Bisdas; D A Bluemke; R Boellaard; C D Claussen; C Franzius; M Hacker; H Hricak; C la Fougère; B Gückel; S G Nekolla; B J Pichler; S Purz; H H Quick; O Sabri; B Sattler; J Schäfer; H Schmidt; J van den Hoff; S Voss; W Weber; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488