Thomas Koesters1, Kent P Friedman2, Matthias Fenchel3, Yiqiang Zhan4, Gerardo Hermosillo4, James Babb2, Ileana O Jelescu2, David Faul4, Fernando E Boada2, Timothy M Shepherd2. 1. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), New York, New York thomas.koesters@nyumc.org. 2. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), New York, New York. 3. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany; and. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Simultaneous PET/MR of the brain is a promising technology for characterizing patients with suspected cognitive impairment or epilepsy. Unlike CT, however, MR signal intensities do not correlate directly with PET photon attenuation correction (AC), and inaccurate radiotracer SUV estimation can limit future PET/MR clinical applications. We tested a novel AC method that supplements standard Dixon-based tissue segmentation with a superimposed model-based bone compartment. METHODS: We directly compared SUV estimation between MR-based AC and reference CT AC in 16 patients undergoing same-day PET/CT and PET/MR with a single (18)F-FDG dose for suspected neurodegeneration. Three Dixon-based MR AC methods were compared with CT: standard Dixon 4-compartment segmentation alone, Dixon with a superimposed model-based bone compartment, and Dixon with a superimposed bone compartment and linear AC optimized specifically for brain tissue. The brain was segmented using a 3-dimensional T1-weighted volumetric MR sequence, and SUV estimations were compared with CT AC for whole-image, whole-brain, and 91 FreeSurfer-based regions of interest. RESULTS: Modifying the linear AC value specifically for brain and superimposing a model-based bone compartment reduced the whole-brain SUV estimation bias of Dixon-based PET/MR AC by 95% compared with reference CT AC (P < 0.05), resulting in a residual -0.3% whole-brain SUVmean bias. Further, brain regional analysis demonstrated only 3 frontal lobe regions with an SUV estimation bias of 5% or greater (P < 0.05). These biases appeared to correlate with high individual variability in frontal bone thickness and pneumatization. CONCLUSION: Bone compartment and linear AC modifications result in a highly accurate MR AC method in subjects with suspected neurodegeneration. This prototype MR AC solution appears equivalent to other recently proposed solutions and does not require additional MR sequences and scanning time. These data also suggest that exclusively model-based MR AC approaches may be adversely affected by common individual variations in skull anatomy.
UNLABELLED: Simultaneous PET/MR of the brain is a promising technology for characterizing patients with suspected cognitive impairment or epilepsy. Unlike CT, however, MR signal intensities do not correlate directly with PET photon attenuation correction (AC), and inaccurate radiotracer SUV estimation can limit future PET/MR clinical applications. We tested a novel AC method that supplements standard Dixon-based tissue segmentation with a superimposed model-based bone compartment. METHODS: We directly compared SUV estimation between MR-based AC and reference CT AC in 16 patients undergoing same-day PET/CT and PET/MR with a single (18)F-FDG dose for suspected neurodegeneration. Three Dixon-based MR AC methods were compared with CT: standard Dixon 4-compartment segmentation alone, Dixon with a superimposed model-based bone compartment, and Dixon with a superimposed bone compartment and linear AC optimized specifically for brain tissue. The brain was segmented using a 3-dimensional T1-weighted volumetric MR sequence, and SUV estimations were compared with CT AC for whole-image, whole-brain, and 91 FreeSurfer-based regions of interest. RESULTS: Modifying the linear AC value specifically for brain and superimposing a model-based bone compartment reduced the whole-brain SUV estimation bias of Dixon-based PET/MR AC by 95% compared with reference CT AC (P < 0.05), resulting in a residual -0.3% whole-brain SUVmean bias. Further, brain regional analysis demonstrated only 3 frontal lobe regions with an SUV estimation bias of 5% or greater (P < 0.05). These biases appeared to correlate with high individual variability in frontal bone thickness and pneumatization. CONCLUSION: Bone compartment and linear AC modifications result in a highly accurate MR AC method in subjects with suspected neurodegeneration. This prototype MR AC solution appears equivalent to other recently proposed solutions and does not require additional MR sequences and scanning time. These data also suggest that exclusively model-based MR AC approaches may be adversely affected by common individual variations in skull anatomy.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Vincent Keereman; Yves Fierens; Tom Broux; Yves De Deene; Max Lonneux; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Andre van der Kouwe; Thomas Benner; Christian J Michel; Michael Hamm; Matthias Fenchel; Bruce Fischl; Bruce Rosen; Matthias Schmand; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David Izquierdo-Garcia; Adam E Hansen; Stefan Förster; Didier Benoit; Sylvia Schachoff; Sebastian Fürst; Kevin T Chen; Daniel B Chonde; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel H Paulus; Harald H Quick; Christian Geppert; Matthias Fenchel; Yiqiang Zhan; Gerardo Hermosillo; David Faul; Fernando Boada; Kent P Friedman; Thomas Koesters Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: L O Wahlund; F Barkhof; F Fazekas; L Bronge; M Augustin; M Sjögren; A Wallin; H Ader; D Leys; L Pantoni; F Pasquier; T Erkinjuntti; P Scheltens Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.914
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: 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: 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: 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: Jeremy N Ford; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Myrto Skafida; Shannon Glynn; Michael Amoashiy; Dale J Lange; Eaton Lin; Gloria C Chiang; Joseph R Osborne; Silky Pahlajani; Mony J de Leon; Jana Ivanidze Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-08-15
Authors: Hong Grafe; Maike E Lindemann; Manuel Weber; Julian Kirchner; Ina Binse; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Harald H Quick Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Maike E Lindemann; Marcel Gratz; Julian Kirchner; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Jan Ole Blumhagen; Matthias Fenchel; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mahdjoub Hamdi; Yutaka Natsuaki; Kristen A Wangerin; Hongyu An; Sarah St James; Paul E Kinahan; John J Sunderland; Peder E Z Larson; Thomas A Hope; Richard Laforest Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-09-20
Authors: Hasan Sari; Ja Reaungamornrat; Onofrio A Catalano; Javier Vera-Olmos; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Manuel A Morales; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Thomas S C Ng; Norberto Malpica; Ali Kamen; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Claes N Ladefoged; Flemming L Andersen; Andreas Kjær; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Martin L Lassen; Otto Muzik; Thomas Beyer; Marcus Hacker; Claes Nøhr Ladefoged; Jacobo Cal-González; Wolfgang Wadsak; Ivo Rausch; Oliver Langer; Martin Bauer Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 4.677