Charlotte S van der Vos1, Willem Grootjans2, Dustin R Osborne3, Antoi P W Meeuwis2, James J Hamill4, Shelley Acuff3, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei5, Eric P Visser2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands charlotte.vandervos@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tennessee. 4. Siemens Healthcare, Knoxville, Tennessee; and. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Respiratory motion during PET can cause inaccuracies in the quantification of radiotracer uptake, which negatively affects PET-guided radiotherapy planning. Quantitative accuracy can be improved by respiratory gating. However, additional miscalculation of standardized uptake value (SUV) in PET images can be caused by inappropriate attenuation correction due to a spatial mismatch between gated PET and CT. In this study, the effect of respiration-triggered CT on the spatial match between CT and amplitude-based respiration-gated PET images is investigated. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 38 patients. Images were acquired on 2 PET/CT scanners, one without and one with continuous bed motion during PET acquisition. The amplitude limits of the amplitude-based respiration-gated PET were used for the respiration-triggered sequential low-dose CT. Both standard (spiral) and triggered CT scans were used to reconstruct the PET data. Spatial mismatch was quantified using the position difference between the lung-liver boundary in PET and CT images, the distance between PET and CT lung lesions' centroids, and the amount of overlap of lesions indicated by the Jaccard similarity coefficient. Furthermore, the effect of attenuation correction was quantified by measuring SUVs in lung lesions. RESULTS: For triggered CT, the average distance between the lung-liver boundary in PET and CT was significantly reduced (4.5 ± 6.7 mm) when compared with standard CT (9.2 ± 8.1 mm) (P < 0.001). The mean distance between the lesions' centroids in PET and CT images was 6.3 ± 4.0 and 5.6 ± 4.2 mm (P = 0.424), for the standard and triggered CT, respectively. Similarly, the Jaccard similarity coefficient was 0.30 ± 0.21 and 0.32 ± 0.20 (P = 0.609) for standard and triggered CT, respectively. For 6 lesions, there was no overlap of PET and CT when the standard CT was used; compared with the triggered CT, these lesions showed (partial) overlap. The maximum and mean SUV increase of the PET/CT compared with the PET/triggered CT was 5.7% ± 11.2% (P < 0.001) and 6.1% ± 10.2% (P = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Amplitude-based respiration-gated PET in combination with respiration-triggered CT resulted in a significantly improved match in the area of the liver dome and a significantly higher SUV for lung lesions. However, lesions in the lungs did not show a consistent improvement in spatial match.
UNLABELLED: Respiratory motion during PET can cause inaccuracies in the quantification of radiotracer uptake, which negatively affects PET-guided radiotherapy planning. Quantitative accuracy can be improved by respiratory gating. However, additional miscalculation of standardized uptake value (SUV) in PET images can be caused by inappropriate attenuation correction due to a spatial mismatch between gated PET and CT. In this study, the effect of respiration-triggered CT on the spatial match between CT and amplitude-based respiration-gated PET images is investigated. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed in 38 patients. Images were acquired on 2 PET/CT scanners, one without and one with continuous bed motion during PET acquisition. The amplitude limits of the amplitude-based respiration-gated PET were used for the respiration-triggered sequential low-dose CT. Both standard (spiral) and triggered CT scans were used to reconstruct the PET data. Spatial mismatch was quantified using the position difference between the lung-liver boundary in PET and CT images, the distance between PET and CT lung lesions' centroids, and the amount of overlap of lesions indicated by the Jaccard similarity coefficient. Furthermore, the effect of attenuation correction was quantified by measuring SUVs in lung lesions. RESULTS: For triggered CT, the average distance between the lung-liver boundary in PET and CT was significantly reduced (4.5 ± 6.7 mm) when compared with standard CT (9.2 ± 8.1 mm) (P < 0.001). The mean distance between the lesions' centroids in PET and CT images was 6.3 ± 4.0 and 5.6 ± 4.2 mm (P = 0.424), for the standard and triggered CT, respectively. Similarly, the Jaccard similarity coefficient was 0.30 ± 0.21 and 0.32 ± 0.20 (P = 0.609) for standard and triggered CT, respectively. For 6 lesions, there was no overlap of PET and CT when the standard CT was used; compared with the triggered CT, these lesions showed (partial) overlap. The maximum and mean SUV increase of the PET/CT compared with the PET/triggered CT was 5.7% ± 11.2% (P < 0.001) and 6.1% ± 10.2% (P = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Amplitude-based respiration-gated PET in combination with respiration-triggered CT resulted in a significantly improved match in the area of the liver dome and a significantly higher SUV for lung lesions. However, lesions in the lungs did not show a consistent improvement in spatial match.
Authors: Hyung Ju Lee; Hye Joo Son; Mijin Yun; Jung Won Moon; Yoo Na Kim; Ji Young Woo; Suk Hyun Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charlotte S van der Vos; Daniëlle Koopman; Sjoerd Rijnsdorp; Albert J Arends; Ronald Boellaard; Jorn A van Dalen; Mark Lubberink; Antoon T M Willemsen; Eric P Visser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R Klén; J Teuho; T Noponen; K Thielemans; E Hoppela; E Lehtonen; H T Sipila; M Teräs; J Knuuti Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sofia C Vaz; Judit A Adam; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Pierre Vera; Wouter van Elmpt; Ken Herrmann; Rodney J Hicks; Yolande Lievens; Andrea Santos; Heiko Schöder; Bernard Dubray; Dimitris Visvikis; Esther G C Troost; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Philippe Robin; David Bourhis; Brieuc Bernard; Ronan Abgral; Solène Querellou; Alexandra Le Duc-Pennec; Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Pierre-Yves Salaün Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2018-02-19