Konstantinos G Zeimpekis1, Felipe Barbosa2, Martin Hüllner2, Edwin ter Voert2, Helen Davison2, Patrick Veit-Haibach2,3, Gaspar Delso4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zürich, Switzerland. konstantinos.zeimpekis@usz.ch. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare only the performance of the PET component between a TOF-PET/CT (henceforth noted as PET/CT) scanner and an integrated TOF-PET/MRI (henceforth noted as PET/MRI) scanner concerning image quality parameters and quantification in terms of standardized uptake value (SUV) as a function of acquisition time (a surrogate of dose). The CT and MR image quality were not assessed, and that is beyond the scope of this study. PROCEDURES: Five brain and five whole-body patients were included in the study. The PET/CT scan was used as a reference and the PET/MRI acquisition time was consecutively adjusted, taking into account the decay between the scans in order to expose both systems to the same amount of the emitted signal. The acquisition times were then retrospectively reduced to assess the performance of the PET/MRI for lower count rates. Image quality, image sharpness, artifacts, and noise were evaluated. SUV measurements were taken in the liver and in the white matter to compare quantification. RESULTS: Quantitative evaluation showed strong correlation between PET/CT and PET/MRI brain SUVs. Liver correlation was good, however, with lower uptake estimation in PET/MRI, partially justified by bio-redistribution. The clinical evaluation showed that PET/MRI offers higher image quality and sharpness with lower levels of noise and artifacts compared to PET/CT with reduced acquisition times for whole-body scans while for brain scans there is no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The TOF-PET/MRI showed higher image quality compared to TOF-PET/CT as tested with reduced imaging times. However, this result accounts mainly for body imaging, while no significant differences were found in brain imaging.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare only the performance of the PET component between a TOF-PET/CT (henceforth noted as PET/CT) scanner and an integrated TOF-PET/MRI (henceforth noted as PET/MRI) scanner concerning image quality parameters and quantification in terms of standardized uptake value (SUV) as a function of acquisition time (a surrogate of dose). The CT and MR image quality were not assessed, and that is beyond the scope of this study. PROCEDURES: Five brain and five whole-body patients were included in the study. The PET/CT scan was used as a reference and the PET/MRI acquisition time was consecutively adjusted, taking into account the decay between the scans in order to expose both systems to the same amount of the emitted signal. The acquisition times were then retrospectively reduced to assess the performance of the PET/MRI for lower count rates. Image quality, image sharpness, artifacts, and noise were evaluated. SUV measurements were taken in the liver and in the white matter to compare quantification. RESULTS: Quantitative evaluation showed strong correlation between PET/CT and PET/MRI brain SUVs. Liver correlation was good, however, with lower uptake estimation in PET/MRI, partially justified by bio-redistribution. The clinical evaluation showed that PET/MRI offers higher image quality and sharpness with lower levels of noise and artifacts compared to PET/CT with reduced acquisition times for whole-body scans while for brain scans there is no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The TOF-PET/MRI showed higher image quality compared to TOF-PET/CT as tested with reduced imaging times. However, this result accounts mainly for body imaging, while no significant differences were found in brain imaging.
Authors: Thorsten A Bley; Oliver Wieben; Christopher J François; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Susanne Ziegler; Bjoern W Jakoby; Jens-Christoph Georgi; Daniel H Paulus; Harald H Quick Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Natalie Chuck; Cristina Rossi; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi; Gustav von Schulthess; Andreas Boss Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Sangtae Ahn; Florian Wiesinger; M Mehdi Khalighi; Craig S Levin; Andrei H Iagaru; Greg Zaharchuk; Martin Huellner; Gaspar Delso Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Elena Incerti; Enrico Tombetti; Federico Fallanca; Elena M Baldissera; Pierpaolo Alongi; Elisabetta Tombolini; Silvia Sartorelli; Maria Grazia Sabbadini; Maurizio Papa; Francesco De Cobelli; Justin C Mason; Luigi Gianolli; Angelo A Manfredi; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Spencer C Behr; Emma Bahroos; Randall A Hawkins; Lorenzo Nardo; Vahid Ravanfar; Emily V Capbarat; Youngho Seo Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Youngho Seo; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Kristen A Wangerin; Timothy W Deller; Yung-Hua Wang; Salma Jivan; Maureen P Kohi; Rahul Aggarwal; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; Michael J Evans Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Urs J Muehlematter; Hannes W Nagel; Anton Becker; Julian Mueller; Kerstin N Vokinger; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Edwin E G T Ter Voert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Irene A Burger Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.138