Sebastian Fürst1, Robert Grimm2, Inki Hong3, Michael Souvatzoglou4, Michael E Casey3, Markus Schwaiger4, Stephan G Nekolla4, Sibylle I Ziegler4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Graduate School of Information Science in Health (GSISH), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany sebastian.fuerst@tum.de. 2. Pattern Recognition Lab, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany Siemens Healthcare MR, Erlangen, Germany; and. 3. Siemens Healthcare MI, Knoxville, Tennessee. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Integrated whole-body PET/MR facilitates the implementation of a broad variety of respiratory motion correction strategies, taking advantage of the strengths of both modalities. The goal of this study was the quantitative evaluation with clinical data of different MR- and PET-data-based motion correction strategies for integrated PET/MR. METHODS: The PET and MR data of 20 patients were simultaneously acquired for 10 min on an integrated PET/MR system after administration of (18)F-FDG or (68)Ga-DOTANOC. Respiratory traces recorded with a bellows were compared against MR self-gating signals and signals extracted from PET raw data with the sensitivity method, by applying principal component analysis (PCA) or Laplacian eigenmaps and by using a novel variation combining the former and either of the latter two. Gated sinograms and MR images were generated accordingly, followed by image registration to derive MR motion models. Corrected PET images were reconstructed by incorporating this information into the reconstruction. An optical flow algorithm was applied for PET-based motion correction. Gating and motion correction were evaluated by quantitative analysis of apparent tracer uptake, lesion volume, displacement, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: The correlation between bellows- and MR-based signals was 0.63 ± 0.19, and that between MR and the sensitivity method was 0.52 ± 0.26. Depending on the PET raw-data compression, the average correlation between MR and PCA ranged from 0.25 ± 0.30 to 0.58 ± 0.33, and the range was 0.25 ± 0.30 to 0.42 ± 0.34 if Laplacian eigenmaps were applied. By combining the sensitivity method and PCA or Laplacian eigenmaps, the maximum average correlation to MR could be increased to 0.74 ± 0.21 and 0.70 ± 0.19, respectively. The selection of the best PET-based signal for each patient yielded an average correlation of 0.80 ± 0.13 with MR. Using the best PET-based respiratory signal for gating, mean tracer uptake increased by 17 ± 19% for gating, 13 ± 10% for MR-based motion correction, and 18 ± 15% for PET-based motion correction, compared with the static images. Lesion volumes were 76 ± 31%, 83 ± 18%, and 74 ± 22% of the sizes in the static images for gating, MR-based motion correction, and PET-based motion correction, respectively. CONCLUSION: Respiratory traces extracted from MR and PET data are comparable to those based on external sensors. The proposed PET-driven gating method improved respiratory signals and overall stability. Consistent results from MR- and PET-based correction methods enable more flexible PET/MR scan protocols while achieving higher PET image quality.
UNLABELLED: Integrated whole-body PET/MR facilitates the implementation of a broad variety of respiratory motion correction strategies, taking advantage of the strengths of both modalities. The goal of this study was the quantitative evaluation with clinical data of different MR- and PET-data-based motion correction strategies for integrated PET/MR. METHODS: The PET and MR data of 20 patients were simultaneously acquired for 10 min on an integrated PET/MR system after administration of (18)F-FDG or (68)Ga-DOTANOC. Respiratory traces recorded with a bellows were compared against MR self-gating signals and signals extracted from PET raw data with the sensitivity method, by applying principal component analysis (PCA) or Laplacian eigenmaps and by using a novel variation combining the former and either of the latter two. Gated sinograms and MR images were generated accordingly, followed by image registration to derive MR motion models. Corrected PET images were reconstructed by incorporating this information into the reconstruction. An optical flow algorithm was applied for PET-based motion correction. Gating and motion correction were evaluated by quantitative analysis of apparent tracer uptake, lesion volume, displacement, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: The correlation between bellows- and MR-based signals was 0.63 ± 0.19, and that between MR and the sensitivity method was 0.52 ± 0.26. Depending on the PET raw-data compression, the average correlation between MR and PCA ranged from 0.25 ± 0.30 to 0.58 ± 0.33, and the range was 0.25 ± 0.30 to 0.42 ± 0.34 if Laplacian eigenmaps were applied. By combining the sensitivity method and PCA or Laplacian eigenmaps, the maximum average correlation to MR could be increased to 0.74 ± 0.21 and 0.70 ± 0.19, respectively. The selection of the best PET-based signal for each patient yielded an average correlation of 0.80 ± 0.13 with MR. Using the best PET-based respiratory signal for gating, mean tracer uptake increased by 17 ± 19% for gating, 13 ± 10% for MR-based motion correction, and 18 ± 15% for PET-based motion correction, compared with the static images. Lesion volumes were 76 ± 31%, 83 ± 18%, and 74 ± 22% of the sizes in the static images for gating, MR-based motion correction, and PET-based motion correction, respectively. CONCLUSION: Respiratory traces extracted from MR and PET data are comparable to those based on external sensors. The proposed PET-driven gating method improved respiratory signals and overall stability. Consistent results from MR- and PET-based correction methods enable more flexible PET/MR scan protocols while achieving higher PET image quality.
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Jana Taron; Ahmed E Othman; Robert Grimm; Matthias Kuendel; Petros Martirosian; Christer Ruff; Christina Schraml; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kristina Herfert; Julia G Mannheim; Laura Kuebler; Sabina Marciano; Mario Amend; Christoph Parl; Hanna Napieczynska; Florian M Maier; Salvador Castaneda Vega; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Christoph Kolbitsch; Mark A Ahlman; Cynthia Davies-Venn; Robert Evers; Michael Hansen; Devis Peressutti; Paul Marsden; Peter Kellman; David A Bluemke; Tobias Schaeffter Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Lale Umutlu; Niccolo Fuin; Matthew Louis Hibert; Michele Scipioni; Stefano Pedemonte; Mark Vangel; Andreea Maria Catana; Ken Herrmann; Felix Nensa; David Groshar; Umar Mahmood; Bruce R Rosen; Ciprian Catana Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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