PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of attenuation correction (AC) for cardiac (18)F-labelled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) using MR-based attenuation maps. METHODS: We included 23 patients with no known cardiac history undergoing whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging for oncological indications on a PET/CT scanner using time-of-flight (TOF) and subsequent whole-body PET/MR imaging on an investigational hybrid PET/MRI scanner. Data sets from PET/MRI (with and without TOF) were reconstructed using MR AC and semi-quantitative segmental (20-segment model) myocardial tracer uptake (per cent of maximum) and compared to PET/CT which was reconstructed using CT AC and served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Excellent correlations were found for regional uptake values between PET/CT and PET/MRI with TOF (n = 460 segments in 23 patients; r = 0.913; p < 0.0001) with narrow Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-8.5 to +12.6 %). Correlation coefficients were slightly lower between PET/CT and PET/MRI without TOF (n = 460 segments in 23 patients; r = 0.851; p < 0.0001) with broader Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-12.5 to +15.0 %). PET/MRI with and without TOF showed minimal underestimation of tracer uptake (-2.08 and -1.29 %, respectively), compared to PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Relative myocardial FDG uptake obtained from MR-based attenuation corrected FDG PET is highly comparable to standard CT-based attenuation corrected FDG PET, suggesting interchangeability of both AC techniques.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of attenuation correction (AC) for cardiac (18)F-labelled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) using MR-based attenuation maps. METHODS: We included 23 patients with no known cardiac history undergoing whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging for oncological indications on a PET/CT scanner using time-of-flight (TOF) and subsequent whole-body PET/MR imaging on an investigational hybrid PET/MRI scanner. Data sets from PET/MRI (with and without TOF) were reconstructed using MR AC and semi-quantitative segmental (20-segment model) myocardial tracer uptake (per cent of maximum) and compared to PET/CT which was reconstructed using CT AC and served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Excellent correlations were found for regional uptake values between PET/CT and PET/MRI with TOF (n = 460 segments in 23 patients; r = 0.913; p < 0.0001) with narrow Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-8.5 to +12.6 %). Correlation coefficients were slightly lower between PET/CT and PET/MRI without TOF (n = 460 segments in 23 patients; r = 0.851; p < 0.0001) with broader Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-12.5 to +15.0 %). PET/MRI with and without TOF showed minimal underestimation of tracer uptake (-2.08 and -1.29 %, respectively), compared to PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Relative myocardial FDG uptake obtained from MR-based attenuation corrected FDG PET is highly comparable to standard CT-based attenuation corrected FDG PET, suggesting interchangeability of both AC techniques.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Felix Nensa; Thorsten D Poeppel; Karsten Beiderwellen; Juliane Schelhorn; Amir A Mahabadi; Raimund Erbel; Philipp Heusch; Kai Nassenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas Schlosser Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Vincent Keereman; Yves Fierens; Tom Broux; Yves De Deene; Max Lonneux; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05 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: Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Gaspar Delso; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Martin Huellner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Hsin-Jung Yang; Damini Dey; Jane Sykes; Michael Klein; John Butler; Michael S Kovacs; Olivia Sobczyk; Behzad Sharif; Xiaoming Bi; Avinash Kali; Ivan Cokic; Richard Tang; Roya Yumul; Antonio H Conte; Sotirios A Tsaftaris; Mourad Tighiouart; Debiao Li; Piotr J Slomka; Daniel S Berman; Frank S Prato; Joseph A Fisher; Rohan Dharmakumar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Ronan Abgral; Maria Giovanna Trivieri; Marc R Dweck; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Gilles Boeykens; Max L Senders; Willem J M Mulder; Charalampos Tsoumpas; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Philip M Robson; Vittoria Vergani; Thomas Benkert; Maria Giovanna Trivieri; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Ronan Abgral; Marc R Dweck; Pedro R Moreno; Jason C Kovacic; Kai Tobias Block; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.872