Yasheng Chen1, Meher Juttukonda, Yi Su, Tammie Benzinger, Brian G Rubin, Yueh Z Lee, Weili Lin, Dinggang Shen, David Lalush, Hongyu An. 1. From the Biomedical Research Imaging Center (Y.C., Y.Z.L., W.L., D.S., D.L., H.A.), Department of Radiology (Y.C., Y.Z.L., W.L., D.S., H.A.), and Department of Biomedical Engineering (M.J., Y.Z.L., W.L., D.L., H.A.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 106 Mason Farm Rd, CB 7513, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; and Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo (Y.S., T.B., B.G.R.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a positron emission tomography (PET) attenuation correction method for brain PET/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by estimating pseudo computed tomographic (CT) images from T1-weighted MR and atlas CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, PET/MR/CT images were acquired in 20 subjects after obtaining written consent. A probabilistic air segmentation and sparse regression (PASSR) method was developed for pseudo CT estimation. Air segmentation was performed with assistance from a probabilistic air map. For nonair regions, the pseudo CT numbers were estimated via sparse regression by using atlas MR patches. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) on PET images was computed as the normalized mean absolute difference in PET signal intensity between a method and the reference standard continuous CT attenuation correction method. Friedman analysis of variance and Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests were performed for statistical comparison of MAPE between the PASSR method and Dixon segmentation, CT segmentation, and population averaged CT atlas (mean atlas) methods. RESULTS: The PASSR method yielded a mean MAPE ± standard deviation of 2.42% ± 1.0, 3.28% ± 0.93, and 2.16% ± 1.75, respectively, in the whole brain, gray matter, and white matter, which were significantly lower than the Dixon, CT segmentation, and mean atlas values (P < .01). Moreover, 68.0% ± 16.5, 85.8% ± 12.9, and 96.0% ± 2.5 of whole-brain volume had within ±2%, ±5%, and ±10% percentage error by using PASSR, respectively, which was significantly higher than other methods (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PASSR outperformed the Dixon, CT segmentation, and mean atlas methods by reducing PET error owing to attenuation correction.
PURPOSE: To develop a positron emission tomography (PET) attenuation correction method for brain PET/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by estimating pseudo computed tomographic (CT) images from T1-weighted MR and atlas CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, PET/MR/CT images were acquired in 20 subjects after obtaining written consent. A probabilistic air segmentation and sparse regression (PASSR) method was developed for pseudo CT estimation. Air segmentation was performed with assistance from a probabilistic air map. For nonair regions, the pseudo CT numbers were estimated via sparse regression by using atlas MR patches. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) on PET images was computed as the normalized mean absolute difference in PET signal intensity between a method and the reference standard continuous CT attenuation correction method. Friedman analysis of variance and Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests were performed for statistical comparison of MAPE between the PASSR method and Dixon segmentation, CT segmentation, and population averaged CT atlas (mean atlas) methods. RESULTS: The PASSR method yielded a mean MAPE ± standard deviation of 2.42% ± 1.0, 3.28% ± 0.93, and 2.16% ± 1.75, respectively, in the whole brain, gray matter, and white matter, which were significantly lower than the Dixon, CT segmentation, and mean atlas values (P < .01). Moreover, 68.0% ± 16.5, 85.8% ± 12.9, and 96.0% ± 2.5 of whole-brain volume had within ±2%, ±5%, and ±10% percentage error by using PASSR, respectively, which was significantly higher than other methods (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PASSR outperformed the Dixon, CT segmentation, and mean atlas methods by reducing PET error owing to attenuation correction.
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Yi Su; Andrei G Vlassenko; Lars E Couture; Tammie Ls Benzinger; Abraham Z Snyder; Colin P Derdeyn; Marcus E Raichle Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
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: Meher R Juttukonda; Bryant G Mersereau; Yasheng Chen; Yi Su; Brian G Rubin; Tammie L S Benzinger; David S Lalush; Hongyu An Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Parna Eshraghi Boroojeni; Yasheng Chen; Paul K Commean; Cihat Eldeniz; Gary B Skolnick; Corinne Merrill; Kamlesh B Patel; Hongyu An Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Yasheng Chen; Chunwei Ying; Michael M Binkley; Meher R Juttukonda; Shaney Flores; Richard Laforest; Tammie L S Benzinger; Hongyu An Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Claes N Ladefoged; Ian Law; Udunna Anazodo; Keith St Lawrence; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Ciprian Catana; Ninon Burgos; M Jorge Cardoso; Sebastien Ourselin; Brian Hutton; Inés Mérida; Nicolas Costes; Alexander Hammers; Didier Benoit; Søren Holm; Meher Juttukonda; Hongyu An; Jorge Cabello; Mathias Lukas; Stephan Nekolla; Sibylle Ziegler; Matthias Fenchel; Bjoern Jakoby; Michael E Casey; Tammie Benzinger; Liselotte Højgaard; Adam E Hansen; Flemming L Andersen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 6.556