Literature DB >> 27036580

Patient motion effects on the quantification of regional myocardial blood flow with dynamic PET imaging.

Chad R R N Hunter1, Ran Klein2, Rob S Beanlands3, Robert A deKemp1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient motion is a common problem during dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) scans for quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of body motion in a clinical setting and evaluate with realistic phantoms the effects of motion on blood flow quantification, including CT attenuation correction (CTAC) artifacts that result from PET-CT misalignment.
METHODS: A cohort of 236 sequential patients was analyzed for patient motion under resting and peak stress conditions by two independent observers. The presence of motion, affected time-frames, and direction of motion was recorded; discrepancy between observers was resolved by consensus review. Based on these results, patient body motion effects on MBF quantification were characterized using the digital NURBS-based cardiac-torso phantom, with characteristic time activity curves (TACs) assigned to the heart wall (myocardium) and blood regions. Simulated projection data were corrected for attenuation and reconstructed using filtered back-projection. All simulations were performed without noise added, and a single CT image was used for attenuation correction and aligned to the early- or late-frame PET images.
RESULTS: In the patient cohort, mild motion of 0.5 ± 0.1 cm occurred in 24% and moderate motion of 1.0 ± 0.3 cm occurred in 38% of patients. Motion in the superior/inferior direction accounted for 45% of all detected motion, with 30% in the superior direction. Anterior/posterior motion was predominant (29%) in the posterior direction. Left/right motion occurred in 24% of cases, with similar proportions in the left and right directions. Computer simulation studies indicated that errors in MBF can approach 500% for scans with severe patient motion (up to 2 cm). The largest errors occurred when the heart wall was shifted left toward the adjacent lung region, resulting in a severe undercorrection for attenuation of the heart wall. Simulations also indicated that the magnitude of MBF errors resulting from motion in the superior/inferior and anterior/posterior directions was similar (up to 250%). Body motion effects were more detrimental for higher resolution PET imaging (2 vs 10 mm full-width at half-maximum), and for motion occurring during the mid-to-late time-frames. Motion correction of the reconstructed dynamic image series resulted in significant reduction in MBF errors, but did not account for the residual PET-CTAC misalignment artifacts. MBF bias was reduced further using global partial-volume correction, and using dynamic alignment of the PET projection data to the CT scan for accurate attenuation correction during image reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient body motion can produce MBF estimation errors up to 500%. To reduce these errors, new motion correction algorithms must be effective in identifying motion in the left/right direction, and in the mid-to-late time-frames, since these conditions produce the largest errors in MBF, particularly for high resolution PET imaging. Ideally, motion correction should be done before or during image reconstruction to eliminate PET-CTAC misalignment artifacts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27036580     DOI: 10.1118/1.4943565

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  22 in total

Review 1.  Updates on Stress Imaging Testing and Myocardial Viability With Advanced Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Sandeep S Hedgire; Michael Osborne; Daniel J Verdini; Brian B Ghoshhajra
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-04

Review 2.  Motion Correction and Its Impact on Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow Measures with PET.

Authors:  Marina Piccinelli; John R Votaw; Ernest V Garcia
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Clinical Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow Using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC.

Authors:  Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Blood pool and tissue phase patient motion effects on 82rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification.

Authors:  Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Benjamin C Lee; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Amanda C Melvin; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Impact of pharmacological stress agent on patient motion during rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion PET/CT.

Authors:  Matthew J Memmott; Christine M Tonge; Kimberley J Saint; Parthiban Arumugam
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Body motion detection and correction in cardiac PET: Phantom and human studies.

Authors:  Tao Sun; Yoann Petibon; Paul K Han; Chao Ma; Sally J W Kim; Nathaniel M Alpert; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Optimizing accuracy and precision with motion correction of PET myocardial blood flow measurements.

Authors:  Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Venkatesh L Murthy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Automated dynamic motion correction using normalized gradient fields for 82rubidium PET myocardial blood flow quantification.

Authors:  Benjamin C Lee; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Amanda C Melvin; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett; Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Myocardial blood flow: Is motion correction necessary?

Authors:  Martin Lyngby Lassen; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 5.952

10.  Internal validation of myocardial flow reserve PET imaging using stress/rest myocardial activity ratios with Rb-82 and N-13-ammonia.

Authors:  Daniel Juneau; Kai Yi Wu; Nicole Kaps; Jason Yao; Jennifer M Renaud; Rob S B Beanlands; Terrence D Ruddy; Robert A deKemp
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 5.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.