Snehashis Roy1, Wen-Tung Wang2, Aaron Carass3, Jerry L Prince3, John A Butman4, Dzung L Pham2. 1. Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Henry Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, Maryland snehashis.roy@gmail.com. 2. Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Henry Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Image Analysis and Communications Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Integrated PET/MR systems are becoming increasingly popular in clinical and research applications. Quantitative PET reconstruction requires correction for γ-photon attenuations using an attenuation coefficient map (μ map) that is a measure of the electron density. One challenge of PET/MR, in contrast to PET/CT, lies in the accurate computation of μ maps. Unlike CT, MR imaging measures physical properties not directly related to electron density. Previous approaches have computed the attenuation coefficients using a segmentation of MR images or using deformable registration of atlas CT images to the space of the subject MR images. METHODS: In this work, we propose a patch-based method to generate whole-head μ maps from ultrashort echo-time (UTE) MR imaging sequences. UTE images are preferred to other MR sequences because of the increased signal from bone. To generate a synthetic CT image, we use patches from a reference dataset, which consists of dual-echo UTE images and a coregistered CT scan from the same subject. Matching of patches between the reference and target images allows corresponding patches from the reference CT scan to be combined via a Bayesian framework. No registration or segmentation is required. RESULTS: For evaluation, UTE, CT, and PET data acquired from 5 patients under an institutional review board-approved protocol were used. Another patient (with UTE and CT data only) was selected to be the reference to generate synthetic CT images for these 5 patients. PET reconstructions were attenuation-corrected using the original CT, our synthetic CT, Siemens Dixon-based μ maps, Siemens UTE-based μ maps, and deformable registration-based CT. Our synthetic CT-based PET reconstruction showed higher correlation (average ρ = 0.996, R(2) = 0.991) to the original CT-based PET, as compared with the segmentation- and registration-based methods. Synthetic CT-based reconstruction had minimal bias (regression slope, 0.990), as compared with the segmentation-based methods (regression slope, 0.905). A peak signal-to-noise ratio of 35.98 dB in the reconstructed PET activity was observed, compared with 29.767, 29.34, and 27.43 dB for the Siemens Dixon-, UTE-, and registration-based μ maps. CONCLUSION: A patch-matching approach to synthesize CT images from dual-echo UTE images leads to significantly improved accuracy of PET reconstruction as compared with actual CT scans. The PET reconstruction is improved over segmentation- (Dixon and Siemens UTE) and registration-based methods, even in subjects with pathologic findings.
UNLABELLED: Integrated PET/MR systems are becoming increasingly popular in clinical and research applications. Quantitative PET reconstruction requires correction for γ-photon attenuations using an attenuation coefficient map (μ map) that is a measure of the electron density. One challenge of PET/MR, in contrast to PET/CT, lies in the accurate computation of μ maps. Unlike CT, MR imaging measures physical properties not directly related to electron density. Previous approaches have computed the attenuation coefficients using a segmentation of MR images or using deformable registration of atlas CT images to the space of the subject MR images. METHODS: In this work, we propose a patch-based method to generate whole-head μ maps from ultrashort echo-time (UTE) MR imaging sequences. UTE images are preferred to other MR sequences because of the increased signal from bone. To generate a synthetic CT image, we use patches from a reference dataset, which consists of dual-echo UTE images and a coregistered CT scan from the same subject. Matching of patches between the reference and target images allows corresponding patches from the reference CT scan to be combined via a Bayesian framework. No registration or segmentation is required. RESULTS: For evaluation, UTE, CT, and PET data acquired from 5 patients under an institutional review board-approved protocol were used. Another patient (with UTE and CT data only) was selected to be the reference to generate synthetic CT images for these 5 patients. PET reconstructions were attenuation-corrected using the original CT, our synthetic CT, Siemens Dixon-based μ maps, Siemens UTE-based μ maps, and deformable registration-based CT. Our synthetic CT-based PET reconstruction showed higher correlation (average ρ = 0.996, R(2) = 0.991) to the original CT-based PET, as compared with the segmentation- and registration-based methods. Synthetic CT-based reconstruction had minimal bias (regression slope, 0.990), as compared with the segmentation-based methods (regression slope, 0.905). A peak signal-to-noise ratio of 35.98 dB in the reconstructed PET activity was observed, compared with 29.767, 29.34, and 27.43 dB for the Siemens Dixon-, UTE-, and registration-based μ maps. CONCLUSION: A patch-matching approach to synthesize CT images from dual-echo UTE images leads to significantly improved accuracy of PET reconstruction as compared with actual CT scans. The PET reconstruction is improved over segmentation- (Dixon and Siemens UTE) and registration-based methods, even in subjects with pathologic findings.
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: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian B Malone; Richard E Ansorge; Guy B Williams; Peter J Nestor; T Adrian Carpenter; Tim D Fryer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-07 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: 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: Paul Kyu Han; Debra E Horng; Kuang Gong; Yoann Petibon; Kyungsang Kim; Quanzheng Li; Keith A Johnson; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang; Chao Ma Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Agisilaos Chartsias; Thomas Joyce; Mario Valerio Giuffrida; Sotirios A Tsaftaris Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 10.048