Yi Su1, Brian B Rubin2, Jonathan McConathy2, Richard Laforest2, Jing Qi2, Akash Sharma2, Agus Priatna3, Tammie L S Benzinger4. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri suy@mir.wustl.edu. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Siemens Medical Solutions, St. Louis, Missouri; and. 4. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri Department of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Hybrid PET and MR scanners have become a reality in recent years, with the benefits of reduced radiation exposure, reduction of imaging time, and potential advantages in quantification. Appropriate attenuation correction remains a challenge. Biases in PET activity measurements were demonstrated using the current MR-based attenuation-correction technique. We aimed to investigate the impact of using a standard MR-based attenuation correction technique on the clinical and research utility of a PET/MR hybrid scanner for amyloid imaging. METHODS: Florbetapir scans were obtained for 40 participants on a hybrid scanner with simultaneous MR acquisition. PET images were reconstructed using both MR- and CT-derived attenuation maps. Quantitative analysis was performed for both datasets to assess the impact of MR-based attenuation correction to absolute PET activity measurements as well as target-to-reference ratio (SUVR). Clinical assessment was also performed by a nuclear medicine physician to determine amyloid status based on the criteria in the Food and Drug Administration prescribing information for florbetapir. RESULTS: MR-based attenuation correction led to underestimation of PET activity for most parts of the brain, with a small overestimation for deep brain regions. There was also an overestimation of SUVRs with cerebellar reference. SUVR measurements obtained from the 2 attenuation-correction methods were strongly correlated. Clinical assessment of amyloid status resulted in identical classification as positive or negative regardless of the attenuation-correction methods. CONCLUSION: MR-based attenuation correction causes biases in quantitative measurements. The biases may be accounted for by a linear model, although the spatial variation cannot be easily modeled. The quantitative differences, however, did not affect clinical assessment as positive or negative.
UNLABELLED: Hybrid PET and MR scanners have become a reality in recent years, with the benefits of reduced radiation exposure, reduction of imaging time, and potential advantages in quantification. Appropriate attenuation correction remains a challenge. Biases in PET activity measurements were demonstrated using the current MR-based attenuation-correction technique. We aimed to investigate the impact of using a standard MR-based attenuation correction technique on the clinical and research utility of a PET/MR hybrid scanner for amyloid imaging. METHODS:Florbetapir scans were obtained for 40 participants on a hybrid scanner with simultaneous MR acquisition. PET images were reconstructed using both MR- and CT-derived attenuation maps. Quantitative analysis was performed for both datasets to assess the impact of MR-based attenuation correction to absolute PET activity measurements as well as target-to-reference ratio (SUVR). Clinical assessment was also performed by a nuclear medicine physician to determine amyloid status based on the criteria in the Food and Drug Administration prescribing information for florbetapir. RESULTS:MR-based attenuation correction led to underestimation of PET activity for most parts of the brain, with a small overestimation for deep brain regions. There was also an overestimation of SUVRs with cerebellar reference. SUVR measurements obtained from the 2 attenuation-correction methods were strongly correlated. Clinical assessment of amyloid status resulted in identical classification as positive or negative regardless of the attenuation-correction methods. CONCLUSION:MR-based attenuation correction causes biases in quantitative measurements. The biases may be accounted for by a linear model, although the spatial variation cannot be easily modeled. The quantitative differences, however, did not affect clinical assessment as positive or negative.
Authors: Yi Su; Ana M Arbelaez; Tammie L S Benzinger; Abraham Z Snyder; Andrei G Vlassenko; Mark A Mintun; Marcus E Raichle Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Daniel S Marcus; Beau M Ances; Randall J Bateman; Nigel J Cairns; Patricia Aldea; Lisa Cash; Jon J Christensen; Karl Friedrichsen; Russ C Hornbeck; Angela M Farrar; Christopher J Owen; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; William Klunk; Julie C Price; Paul M Thompson; Bernadino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Peter R Schofield; Virginia Buckles; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: John C Morris; Paul S Aisen; Randall J Bateman; Tammie L S Benzinger; Nigel J Cairns; Anne M Fagan; Bernardino Ghetti; Alison M Goate; David M Holtzman; William E Klunk; Eric McDade; Daniel S Marcus; Ralph N Martins; Colin L Masters; Richard Mayeux; Angela Oliver; Kimberly Quaid; John M Ringman; Martin N Rossor; Stephen Salloway; Peter R Schofield; Natalie J Selsor; Reisa A Sperling; Michael W Weiner; Chengjie Xiong; Krista L Moulder; Virginia D Buckles Journal: Clin Investig (Lond) Date: 2012-10-01
Authors: Yi Su; Gina M D'Angelo; Andrei G Vlassenko; Gongfu Zhou; Abraham Z Snyder; Daniel S Marcus; Tyler M Blazey; Jon J Christensen; Shivangi Vora; John C Morris; Mark A Mintun; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jaewon Yang; Florian Wiesinger; Sandeep Kaushik; Dattesh Shanbhag; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson; Youngho Seo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yi Su; Andrei G Vlassenko; Lars E Couture; Tammie Ls Benzinger; Abraham Z Snyder; Colin P Derdeyn; Marcus E Raichle Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Sarah A Eisenstein; Ryan Bogdan; Ling Chen; Stephen M Moerlein; Kevin J Black; Joel S Perlmutter; Tamara Hershey; Deanna M Barch Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 4.791
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