Jeffrey M C Lau1, R Laforest2, H Sotoudeh2, X Nie2, S Sharma3, J McConathy2, E Novak3, A Priatna4, R J Gropler2, P K Woodard2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University in Saint Louis, Campus Box 8086, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. manchunlau@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University in Saint Louis, Campus Box 8086, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions U.S.A, Malvern, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous acquisition Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) is a new technology that has potential as a tool both in research and clinical diagnosis. However, cardiac PET acquisition has not yet been validated using MR imaging for attenuation correction (AC). The goal of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of PET imaging using a standard 2-point Dixon volume interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE) MR sequence for AC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Evaluation was performed in both phantom and patient data. A chest phantom containing heart, lungs, and a lesion insert was scanned by both PET/MR and PET/CT. In addition, 30 patients underwent whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT followed by simultaneous cardiac PET/MR. Phantom study showed 3% reduction of activity values in the myocardium due to the non-inclusion of the phased array coil in the AC. In patient scans, average standardized uptake values (SUVs) obtained by PET/CT and PET/MR showed no significant difference (n = 30, 4.6 ± 3.5 vs 4.7 ± 2.8, P = 0.47). There was excellent per patient correlation between the values acquired by PET/CT and PET/MR (R 2 = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial SUVs PET imaging using MR for AC shows excellent correlation with myocardial SUVs obtained by standard PET/CT imaging. The 2-point Dixon VIBE MR technique can be used for AC in simultaneous PET/MR data acquisition.
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous acquisition Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) is a new technology that has potential as a tool both in research and clinical diagnosis. However, cardiac PET acquisition has not yet been validated using MR imaging for attenuation correction (AC). The goal of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of PET imaging using a standard 2-point Dixon volume interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE) MR sequence for AC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Evaluation was performed in both phantom and patient data. A chest phantom containing heart, lungs, and a lesion insert was scanned by both PET/MR and PET/CT. In addition, 30 patients underwent whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT followed by simultaneous cardiac PET/MR. Phantom study showed 3% reduction of activity values in the myocardium due to the non-inclusion of the phased array coil in the AC. In patient scans, average standardized uptake values (SUVs) obtained by PET/CT and PET/MR showed no significant difference (n = 30, 4.6 ± 3.5 vs 4.7 ± 2.8, P = 0.47). There was excellent per patient correlation between the values acquired by PET/CT and PET/MR (R 2 = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial SUVs PET imaging using MR for AC shows excellent correlation with myocardial SUVs obtained by standard PET/CT imaging. The 2-point Dixon VIBE MR technique can be used for AC in simultaneous PET/MR data acquisition.
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: Sune H Keller; Søren Holm; Adam E Hansen; Bernhard Sattler; Flemming Andersen; Thomas L Klausen; Liselotte Højgaard; Andreas Kjær; Thomas Beyer Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 2.310
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: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
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: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Johannes Mayer; Yining Jin; Thomas-Heinrich Wurster; Marcus R Makowski; Christoph Kolbitsch Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 4.226