BACKGROUND: Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) causes underestimation of standardized uptake value (SUV) and variation of lesion volume, while PET and CT attenuation correction (CTAC) mismatch may introduce artefacts. The aim was to compare end-expiratory gating methods of PET and CTAC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three methods named the minimum-constant, slope-based and amplitude-median were developed and evaluated on gating efficiency. Method evaluation and optimization was performed on 23 simulated and 23 recorded signals from a mixed patient group. The optimized methods were applied in PET/CT imaging of seven patients, consisting of non-gated CTAC, whole-body PET and four-dimensional (4D) PET/CT. Gating efficiency was evaluated by preservation of the respiratory signal, PET-CTAC alignment, image noise and measurement of lesion SUV maximum (SUVmax), SUV mean (SUVmean) and volume. The methods were evaluated with non-gated PET and end-expiratory phase of five-bin phase-gated PET. End-expiratory gated 4D-CTAC and averaged CTAC were compared for attenuation correction of end-expiratory gated PET. RESULTS: Mean fraction of data preserved was larger (23-34%) with end-expiratory gating compared to phase-gated PET. End-expiratory gating showed increased SUVmax (8.2-8.4 g/ml), SUVmean (5.7-5.8 g/ml) and decreased lesion volume (-11.3-16.8%) compared to non-gated PET (SUVmax 6.2 g/ml, SUVmean 4.7 g/ml) and phase-gated PET (SUVmax 8.0 g/ml, SUVmean 5.6 g/ml). Using averaged CTAC and end-expiratory 4D-CTAC produced similar results concerning SUVmax, with less than 5% difference. Additionally, CTAC-PET-mismatch was minimal when end-expiratory 4D-CTAC was used. CONCLUSION: End-expiratory gating in PET/CT results in SUVmax and SUVmean increase and reduced lesion volume compared to non-gated PET and phase-gated PET. End-expiratory 4D-CTAC or averaged CTAC will offer similar accuracy for attenuation correction of end-expiratory gated PET.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) causes underestimation of standardized uptake value (SUV) and variation of lesion volume, while PET and CT attenuation correction (CTAC) mismatch may introduce artefacts. The aim was to compare end-expiratory gating methods of PET and CTAC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three methods named the minimum-constant, slope-based and amplitude-median were developed and evaluated on gating efficiency. Method evaluation and optimization was performed on 23 simulated and 23 recorded signals from a mixed patient group. The optimized methods were applied in PET/CT imaging of seven patients, consisting of non-gated CTAC, whole-body PET and four-dimensional (4D) PET/CT. Gating efficiency was evaluated by preservation of the respiratory signal, PET-CTAC alignment, image noise and measurement of lesion SUV maximum (SUVmax), SUV mean (SUVmean) and volume. The methods were evaluated with non-gated PET and end-expiratory phase of five-bin phase-gated PET. End-expiratory gated 4D-CTAC and averaged CTAC were compared for attenuation correction of end-expiratory gated PET. RESULTS: Mean fraction of data preserved was larger (23-34%) with end-expiratory gating compared to phase-gated PET. End-expiratory gating showed increased SUVmax (8.2-8.4 g/ml), SUVmean (5.7-5.8 g/ml) and decreased lesion volume (-11.3-16.8%) compared to non-gated PET (SUVmax 6.2 g/ml, SUVmean 4.7 g/ml) and phase-gated PET (SUVmax 8.0 g/ml, SUVmean 5.6 g/ml). Using averaged CTAC and end-expiratory 4D-CTAC produced similar results concerning SUVmax, with less than 5% difference. Additionally, CTAC-PET-mismatch was minimal when end-expiratory 4D-CTAC was used. CONCLUSION: End-expiratory gating in PET/CT results in SUVmax and SUVmean increase and reduced lesion volume compared to non-gated PET and phase-gated PET. End-expiratory 4D-CTAC or averaged CTAC will offer similar accuracy for attenuation correction of end-expiratory gated PET.
Authors: Benjamin Noto; Wolfgang Roll; Laura Zinken; Robert Rischen; Laura Kerschke; Georg Evers; Walter Heindel; Michael Schäfers; Florian Büther Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.434