Karen Lyons1, Victor Seghers1, Jennifer L Williams1,2, James I L Sorensen3, Michael J Paldino1, Rajesh Krishnamurthy1, Eric M Rohren4. 1. 1 Department of Pediatric Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital, 6701 Fannin St, Ste 470, Houston, TX 77030. 2. 2 Present address: Department of Radiology, Florida Hospital for Children, Maitland, FL. 3. 3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. 4 Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic quality of (18)F-FDG PET images generated using MR attenuation correction (MRAC) compared with those images generated using CT attenuation correction (CTAC) in a pediatric population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (mean age, 12.8 years; percentage who were male, 57%) who were referred for 62 indicated whole-body PET/CT studies were prospectively recruited to undergo PET/MRI examinations during the same clinic visit in which PET/CT was performed. MRAC was performed using an automatic three-segment model. Three nuclear radiologists scored the diagnostic quality of the PET images generated by MRAC and CTAC using a Likert scale (range of scores, 1-5). Images graded with a score of 1-3 were considered clinically unacceptable, whereas images with a score of 4-5 were considered clinically acceptable. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences in the grading of PET/MRI and PET/CT images. The Fisher exact test was used to evaluate potential differences in clinically acceptable image quality and the presence of artifact. Fleiss kappa statistics were used to examine interobserver agreement. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of PET images generated with MRAC and CTAC for which image quality was considered clinically acceptable. A total of 3.9% of PET assessments generated with MRAC were of unacceptable image quality, compared with 2.2% of PET images generated with CTAC. Two of the three radiologists who reviewed the PET images reported the presence of artifacts more often on MRAC-derived images, and they graded the mean quality of these images 0.48 and 0.29 points lower on the 5-point Likert scale than they graded the mean quality of CTAC-derived images (p < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement was fair (κ = 0.39). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic quality of PET images obtained from a pediatric population with the use of an automatic three-segmentation MRAC method was comparable to that of PET images obtained with the use of CTAC.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic quality of (18)F-FDG PET images generated using MR attenuation correction (MRAC) compared with those images generated using CT attenuation correction (CTAC) in a pediatric population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (mean age, 12.8 years; percentage who were male, 57%) who were referred for 62 indicated whole-body PET/CT studies were prospectively recruited to undergo PET/MRI examinations during the same clinic visit in which PET/CT was performed. MRAC was performed using an automatic three-segment model. Three nuclear radiologists scored the diagnostic quality of the PET images generated by MRAC and CTAC using a Likert scale (range of scores, 1-5). Images graded with a score of 1-3 were considered clinically unacceptable, whereas images with a score of 4-5 were considered clinically acceptable. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences in the grading of PET/MRI and PET/CT images. The Fisher exact test was used to evaluate potential differences in clinically acceptable image quality and the presence of artifact. Fleiss kappa statistics were used to examine interobserver agreement. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of PET images generated with MRAC and CTAC for which image quality was considered clinically acceptable. A total of 3.9% of PET assessments generated with MRAC were of unacceptable image quality, compared with 2.2% of PET images generated with CTAC. Two of the three radiologists who reviewed the PET images reported the presence of artifacts more often on MRAC-derived images, and they graded the mean quality of these images 0.48 and 0.29 points lower on the 5-point Likert scale than they graded the mean quality of CTAC-derived images (p < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement was fair (κ = 0.39). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic quality of PET images obtained from a pediatric population with the use of an automatic three-segmentation MRAC method was comparable to that of PET images obtained with the use of CTAC.
Authors: Brian S Pugmire; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ruth Lim; Alison M Friedmann; Mary Huang; David Ebb; Howard Weinstein; Onofrio A Catalano; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Michael S Gee Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-03-28