OBJECTIVES: To implement and evaluate a dedicated receiver array coil for simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) imaging in breast cancer. METHODS: A 16-channel receiver coil design was optimized for simultaneous PET/MR imaging. To assess MR performance, the signal-to-noise ratio, parallel imaging capability and image quality was evaluated in phantoms, volunteers and patients and compared to clinical standard protocols. For PET evaluation, quantitative (18) F-FDG PET images of phantoms and seven patients (14 lesions) were compared to images without the coil. In PET image reconstruction, a CT-based template of the coil was combined with the MR-acquired attenuation correction (AC) map of the phantom/patient. RESULTS: MR image quality was comparable to clinical MR-only examinations. PET evaluation in phantoms showed regionally varying underestimation of the standardised uptake value (SUV; mean 22 %) due to attenuation caused by the coil. This was improved by implementing the CT-based coil template in the AC (<2 % SUV underestimation). Patient data indicated that including the coil in the AC increased the SUV values in the lesions (21 ± 9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Using a dedicated PET/MR breast coil, state-of-the-art MRI was possible. In PET, accurate quantification and image homogeneity could be achieved if a CT-template of this coil was included in the AC for PET image reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • State-of-the-art breast MRI using a dedicated PET/MR breast coil is feasible. • A multi-channel design facilitates shorter MR acquisition times via parallel imaging. • An MR coil inside a simultaneous PET/MR system causes PET photon attenuation. • Including a coil CT-template in PET image reconstruction results in recovering accurate quantification.
OBJECTIVES: To implement and evaluate a dedicated receiver array coil for simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) imaging in breast cancer. METHODS: A 16-channel receiver coil design was optimized for simultaneous PET/MR imaging. To assess MR performance, the signal-to-noise ratio, parallel imaging capability and image quality was evaluated in phantoms, volunteers and patients and compared to clinical standard protocols. For PET evaluation, quantitative (18) F-FDG PET images of phantoms and seven patients (14 lesions) were compared to images without the coil. In PET image reconstruction, a CT-based template of the coil was combined with the MR-acquired attenuation correction (AC) map of the phantom/patient. RESULTS: MR image quality was comparable to clinical MR-only examinations. PET evaluation in phantoms showed regionally varying underestimation of the standardised uptake value (SUV; mean 22 %) due to attenuation caused by the coil. This was improved by implementing the CT-based coil template in the AC (<2 % SUV underestimation). Patient data indicated that including the coil in the AC increased the SUV values in the lesions (21 ± 9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Using a dedicated PET/MR breast coil, state-of-the-art MRI was possible. In PET, accurate quantification and image homogeneity could be achieved if a CT-template of this coil was included in the AC for PET image reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • State-of-the-art breast MRI using a dedicated PET/MR breast coil is feasible. • A multi-channel design facilitates shorter MR acquisition times via parallel imaging. • An MR coil inside a simultaneous PET/MR system causes PET photon attenuation. • Including a coil CT-template in PET image reconstruction results in recovering accurate quantification.
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: Bernd J Pichler; Martin S Judenhofer; Ciprian Catana; Jeffrey H Walton; Manfred Kneilling; Robert E Nutt; Stefan B Siegel; Claus D Claussen; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Yibao Wu; Martin S Judenhofer; Jinyi Qi; Bernd J Pichler; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martin S Judenhofer; Hans F Wehrl; Danny F Newport; Ciprian Catana; Stefan B Siegel; Markus Becker; Axel Thielscher; Manfred Kneilling; Matthias P Lichy; Martin Eichner; Karin Klingel; Gerald Reischl; Stefan Widmaier; Martin Röcken; Robert E Nutt; Hans-Jürgen Machulla; Kamil Uludag; Simon R Cherry; Claus D Claussen; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2008-03-23 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Bassim Aklan; Daniel H Paulus; Evelyn Wenkel; Harald Braun; Bharath K Navalpakkam; Susanne Ziegler; Christian Geppert; Eric E Sigmund; Amy Melsaether; Harald H Quick Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Amy M Fowler; Manoj Kumar; Leah Henze Bancroft; Kelley Salem; Jacob M Johnson; Jillian Karow; Scott B Perlman; Tyler J Bradshaw; Samuel A Hurley; Alan B McMillan; Roberta M Strigel Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Mootaz Eldib; Jason Bini; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; David D Faul; Charalampos Tsoumpas; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent Friedman; Hersh Chandarana; Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy; Yu-Shin Ding; Komal Jhaveri; Luis Beltran; Rajan Jain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian J Lee; Alexander M Grant; Chen-Ming Chang; Ronald D Watkins; Gary H Glover; Craig S Levin Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 10.048