Tetsuro Sekine1, Alfred Buck2, Gaspar Delso3, Edwin E G W Ter Voert2, Martin Huellner4, Patrick Veit-Haibach5, Geoffrey Warnock2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Radiology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan tetsuro.sekine@gmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; and. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Attenuation correction (AC) for integrated PET/MR imaging in the human brain is still an open problem. In this study, we evaluated a simplified atlas-based AC (Atlas-AC) by comparing (18)F-FDG PET data corrected using either Atlas-AC or true CT data (CT-AC). METHODS: We enrolled 8 patients (median age, 63 y). All patients underwent clinically indicated whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging, restaging, or follow-up of malignant disease. All patients volunteered for an additional PET/MR of the head (additional tracer was not injected). For each patient, 2 AC maps were generated: an Atlas-AC map registered to a patient-specific liver accelerated volume acquisition-Flex MR sequence and using a vendor-provided head atlas generated from multiple CT head images and a CT-based AC map. For comparative AC, the CT-AC map generated from PET/CT was superimposed on the Atlas-AC map. PET images were reconstructed from the list-mode raw data from the PET/MR imaging scanner using each AC map. All PET images were normalized to the SPM5 PET template, and (18)F-FDG accumulation was quantified in 67 volumes of interest (VOIs; automated anatomic labeling atlas). Relative difference (%diff) between images based on Atlas-AC and CT-AC was calculated, and averaged difference images were generated. (18)F-FDG uptake in all VOIs was compared using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The range of error in all 536 VOIs was -3.0%-7.3%. Whole-brain (18)F-FDG uptake based on Atlas-AC was slightly underestimated (%diff = 2.19% ± 1.40%). The underestimation was most pronounced in the regions below the anterior/posterior commissure line, such as the cerebellum, temporal lobe, and central structures (%diff = 3.69% ± 1.43%, 3.25% ± 1.42%, and 3.05% ± 1.18%), suggesting that Atlas-AC tends to underestimate the attenuation values of the skull base bone. CONCLUSION: When compared with the gold-standard CT-AC, errors introduced using Atlas-AC did not exceed 8% in any brain region investigated. Underestimation of (18)F-FDG uptake was minor (<4%) but significant in regions near the skull base.
UNLABELLED: Attenuation correction (AC) for integrated PET/MR imaging in the human brain is still an open problem. In this study, we evaluated a simplified atlas-based AC (Atlas-AC) by comparing (18)F-FDG PET data corrected using either Atlas-AC or true CT data (CT-AC). METHODS: We enrolled 8 patients (median age, 63 y). All patients underwent clinically indicated whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging, restaging, or follow-up of malignant disease. All patients volunteered for an additional PET/MR of the head (additional tracer was not injected). For each patient, 2 AC maps were generated: an Atlas-AC map registered to a patient-specific liver accelerated volume acquisition-Flex MR sequence and using a vendor-provided head atlas generated from multiple CT head images and a CT-based AC map. For comparative AC, the CT-AC map generated from PET/CT was superimposed on the Atlas-AC map. PET images were reconstructed from the list-mode raw data from the PET/MR imaging scanner using each AC map. All PET images were normalized to the SPM5 PET template, and (18)F-FDG accumulation was quantified in 67 volumes of interest (VOIs; automated anatomic labeling atlas). Relative difference (%diff) between images based on Atlas-AC and CT-AC was calculated, and averaged difference images were generated. (18)F-FDG uptake in all VOIs was compared using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The range of error in all 536 VOIs was -3.0%-7.3%. Whole-brain (18)F-FDG uptake based on Atlas-AC was slightly underestimated (%diff = 2.19% ± 1.40%). The underestimation was most pronounced in the regions below the anterior/posterior commissure line, such as the cerebellum, temporal lobe, and central structures (%diff = 3.69% ± 1.43%, 3.25% ± 1.42%, and 3.05% ± 1.18%), suggesting that Atlas-AC tends to underestimate the attenuation values of the skull base bone. CONCLUSION: When compared with the gold-standard CT-AC, errors introduced using Atlas-AC did not exceed 8% in any brain region investigated. Underestimation of (18)F-FDG uptake was minor (<4%) but significant in regions near the skull base.
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: Christian Philipp Reinert; Martin Ulrich Schuhmann; Benjamin Bender; Isabel Gugel; Christian la Fougère; Jürgen Schäfer; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yosuke Ishii; Thoralf Thamm; Jia Guo; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Mirwais Wardak; Dawn Holley; Harsh Gandhi; Jun Hyung Park; Bin Shen; Gary K Steinberg; Frederick T Chin; Greg Zaharchuk; Audrey Peiwen Fan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Zhaolin Chen; Sharna D Jamadar; Shenpeng Li; Francesco Sforazzini; Jakub Baran; Nicholas Ferris; Nadim Jon Shah; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.038
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: Andrew P Leynes; Jaewon Yang; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Sandeep S Kaushik; Youngho Seo; Thomas A Hope; Florian Wiesinger; Peder E Z Larson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jorge Cabello; Mathias Lukas; Elena Rota Kops; André Ribeiro; N Jon Shah; Igor Yakushev; Thomas Pyka; Stephan G Nekolla; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Audrey P Fan; Jia Guo; Mohammad M Khalighi; Praveen K Gulaka; Bin Shen; Jun Hyung Park; Harsh Gandhi; Dawn Holley; Omar Rutledge; Prachi Singh; Tom Haywood; Gary K Steinberg; Frederick T Chin; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 7.914