Daniel H Paulus1, Harald H Quick2, Christian Geppert3, Matthias Fenchel3, Yiqiang Zhan4, Gerardo Hermosillo4, David Faul5, Fernando Boada6, Kent P Friedman7, Thomas Koesters6. 1. Institute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany daniel.paulus@imp.uni-erlangen.de. 2. Institute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany Erwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany High Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Siemens AG Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Siemens AG Healthcare, Malvern, Pennsylvania. 5. Siemens AG Healthcare, New York, New York. 6. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; and Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), New York, New York. 7. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; and.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In routine whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging, attenuation correction (AC) is usually performed by segmentation methods based on a Dixon MR sequence providing up to 4 different tissue classes. Because of the lack of bone information with the Dixon-based MR sequence, bone is currently considered as soft tissue. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate a novel model-based AC method that considers bone in whole-body PET/MR imaging. METHODS: The new method ("Model") is based on a regular 4-compartment segmentation from a Dixon sequence ("Dixon"). Bone information is added using a model-based bone segmentation algorithm, which includes a set of prealigned MR image and bone mask pairs for each major body bone individually. Model was quantitatively evaluated on 20 patients who underwent whole-body PET/MR imaging. As a standard of reference, CT-based μ-maps were generated for each patient individually by nonrigid registration to the MR images based on PET/CT data. This step allowed for a quantitative comparison of all μ-maps based on a single PET emission raw dataset of the PET/MR system. Volumes of interest were drawn on normal tissue, soft-tissue lesions, and bone lesions; standardized uptake values were quantitatively compared. RESULTS: In soft-tissue regions with background uptake, the average bias of SUVs in background volumes of interest was 2.4% ± 2.5% and 2.7% ± 2.7% for Dixon and Model, respectively, compared with CT-based AC. For bony tissue, the -25.5% ± 7.9% underestimation observed with Dixon was reduced to -4.9% ± 6.7% with Model. In bone lesions, the average underestimation was -7.4% ± 5.3% and -2.9% ± 5.8% for Dixon and Model, respectively. For soft-tissue lesions, the biases were 5.1% ± 5.1% for Dixon and 5.2% ± 5.2% for Model. CONCLUSION: The novel MR-based AC method for whole-body PET/MR imaging, combining Dixon-based soft-tissue segmentation and model-based bone estimation, improves PET quantification in whole-body hybrid PET/MR imaging, especially in bony tissue and nearby soft tissue.
UNLABELLED: In routine whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging, attenuation correction (AC) is usually performed by segmentation methods based on a Dixon MR sequence providing up to 4 different tissue classes. Because of the lack of bone information with the Dixon-based MR sequence, bone is currently considered as soft tissue. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate a novel model-based AC method that considers bone in whole-body PET/MR imaging. METHODS: The new method ("Model") is based on a regular 4-compartment segmentation from a Dixon sequence ("Dixon"). Bone information is added using a model-based bone segmentation algorithm, which includes a set of prealigned MR image and bone mask pairs for each major body bone individually. Model was quantitatively evaluated on 20 patients who underwent whole-body PET/MR imaging. As a standard of reference, CT-based μ-maps were generated for each patient individually by nonrigid registration to the MR images based on PET/CT data. This step allowed for a quantitative comparison of all μ-maps based on a single PET emission raw dataset of the PET/MR system. Volumes of interest were drawn on normal tissue, soft-tissue lesions, and bone lesions; standardized uptake values were quantitatively compared. RESULTS: In soft-tissue regions with background uptake, the average bias of SUVs in background volumes of interest was 2.4% ± 2.5% and 2.7% ± 2.7% for Dixon and Model, respectively, compared with CT-based AC. For bony tissue, the -25.5% ± 7.9% underestimation observed with Dixon was reduced to -4.9% ± 6.7% with Model. In bone lesions, the average underestimation was -7.4% ± 5.3% and -2.9% ± 5.8% for Dixon and Model, respectively. For soft-tissue lesions, the biases were 5.1% ± 5.1% for Dixon and 5.2% ± 5.2% for Model. CONCLUSION: The novel MR-based AC method for whole-body PET/MR imaging, combining Dixon-based soft-tissue segmentation and model-based bone estimation, improves PET quantification in whole-body hybrid PET/MR imaging, especially in bony tissue and nearby soft tissue.
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Johan Nuyts; Girish Bal; Frank Kehren; Matthias Fenchel; Christian Michel; Charles Watson Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: René Kartmann; Daniel H Paulus; Harald Braun; Bassim Aklan; Susanne Ziegler; Bharath K Navalpakkam; Markus Lentschig; Harald H Quick Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Marco Wiesmüller; Harald H Quick; Bharath Navalpakkam; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Philipp Ritt; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Carl C von Gall Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: Andrew P Leynes; Jaewon Yang; Florian Wiesinger; Sandeep S Kaushik; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Youngho Seo; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Ferdinand Seith; Christina Schraml; Gerald Reischl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Nina Schwenzer Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Dharshan Chandramohan; Peng Cao; Misung Han; Hongyu An; John J Sunderland; Paul E Kinahan; Richard Laforest; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Eric C Ehman; Geoffrey B Johnson; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Andrew Palmera Leynes; Peder Eric Zufall Larson; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Maike E Lindemann; Marcel Gratz; Julian Kirchner; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Jan Ole Blumhagen; Matthias Fenchel; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Martin L Lassen; Ronald Boellaard; Gaspar Delso; Maqsood Yaqub; Bernhard Sattler; Harald H Quick Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.310