Jorge Cabello1, Mathias Lukas2, Elena Rota Kops3, André Ribeiro3,4, N Jon Shah3, Igor Yakushev2,5, Thomas Pyka2, Stephan G Nekolla2, Sibylle I Ziegler2. 1. Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. jorge.cabello@tum.de. 2. Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine 4, Medical Imaging Physics, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany. 4. Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Institute TUM Neuroimaging Center (TUM-NIC), Munich, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The combination of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hybrid PET/MRI scanners offers a number of advantages in investigating brain structure and function. A critical step of PET data reconstruction is attenuation correction (AC). Accounting for bone in attenuation maps (μ-map) was shown to be important in brain PET studies. While there are a number of MRI-based AC methods, no systematic comparison between them has been performed so far. The aim of this work was to study the different performance obtained by some of the recent methods presented in the literature. To perform such a comparison, we focused on [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/MRI neurodegenerative dementing disorders, which are known to exhibit reduced levels of glucose metabolism in certain brain regions. METHODS: Four novel methods were used to calculate μ-maps from MRI data of 15 patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD). The methods cover two atlas-based methods, a segmentation method, and a hybrid template/segmentation method. Additionally, the Dixon-based and a UTE-based method, offered by a vendor, were included in the comparison. Performance was assessed at three levels: tissue identification accuracy in the μ-map, quantitative accuracy of reconstructed PET data in specific brain regions, and precision in diagnostic images at identifying hypometabolic areas. RESULTS: Quantitative regional errors of -20--10 % were obtained using the vendor's AC methods, whereas the novel methods produced errors in a margin of ±5 %. The obtained precision at identifying areas with abnormally low levels of glucose uptake, potentially regions affected by AD, were 62.9 and 79.5 % for the two vendor AC methods, the former ignoring bone and the latter including bone information. The precision increased to 87.5-93.3 % in average for the four new methods, exhibiting similar performances. CONCLUSION: We confirm that the AC methods based on the Dixon and UTE sequences provided by the vendor are inferior to alternative techniques. As a novel finding, there was no substantial difference between the recently proposed atlas-based, template-based and segmentation-based methods.
INTRODUCTION: The combination of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hybrid PET/MRI scanners offers a number of advantages in investigating brain structure and function. A critical step of PET data reconstruction is attenuation correction (AC). Accounting for bone in attenuation maps (μ-map) was shown to be important in brain PET studies. While there are a number of MRI-based AC methods, no systematic comparison between them has been performed so far. The aim of this work was to study the different performance obtained by some of the recent methods presented in the literature. To perform such a comparison, we focused on [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/MRI neurodegenerative dementing disorders, which are known to exhibit reduced levels of glucose metabolism in certain brain regions. METHODS: Four novel methods were used to calculate μ-maps from MRI data of 15 patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD). The methods cover two atlas-based methods, a segmentation method, and a hybrid template/segmentation method. Additionally, the Dixon-based and a UTE-based method, offered by a vendor, were included in the comparison. Performance was assessed at three levels: tissue identification accuracy in the μ-map, quantitative accuracy of reconstructed PET data in specific brain regions, and precision in diagnostic images at identifying hypometabolic areas. RESULTS: Quantitative regional errors of -20--10 % were obtained using the vendor's AC methods, whereas the novel methods produced errors in a margin of ±5 %. The obtained precision at identifying areas with abnormally low levels of glucose uptake, potentially regions affected by AD, were 62.9 and 79.5 % for the two vendor AC methods, the former ignoring bone and the latter including bone information. The precision increased to 87.5-93.3 % in average for the four new methods, exhibiting similar performances. CONCLUSION: We confirm that the AC methods based on the Dixon and UTE sequences provided by the vendor are inferior to alternative techniques. As a novel finding, there was no substantial difference between the recently proposed atlas-based, template-based and segmentation-based methods.
Authors: Stefan Teipel; Alexander Drzezga; Michel J Grothe; Henryk Barthel; Gaël Chételat; Norbert Schuff; Pawel Skudlarski; Enrica Cavedo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Jochen René Thyrian; Chris Fox; Satoshi Minoshima; Osama Sabri; Andreas Fellgiebel Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Florian Wiesinger; Laura I Sacolick; Sandeep S Kaushik; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Martin Hüllner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Claes N Ladefoged; Adam E Hansen; Sune H Keller; Barbara M Fischer; Jacob H Rasmussen; Ian Law; Andreas Kjær; Liselotte Højgaard; Francois Lauze; Thomas Beyer; Flemming L Andersen Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-03-11
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: Tetsuro Sekine; Alfred Buck; Gaspar Delso; Bradley Kemp; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Martin Huellner; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Sandeep Kaushik; Florian Wiesinger; Geoffrey Warnock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jakub Baran; Zhaolin Chen; Francesco Sforazzini; Nicholas Ferris; Sharna Jamadar; Ben Schmitt; David Faul; Nadim Jon Shah; Marian Cholewa; Gary F Egan Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Silje Kjærnes Øen; Thomas Morten Keil; Erik Magnus Berntsen; Joel Fredrik Aanerud; Thomas Schwarzlmüller; Claes Nøhr Ladefoged; Anna Maria Karlberg; Live Eikenes Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Jorge Cabello; Mihai Avram; Felix Brandl; Mona Mustafa; Martin Scherr; Claudia Leucht; Stefan Leucht; Christian Sorg; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Paul Blanc-Durand; Maya Khalife; Brian Sgard; Sandeep Kaushik; Marine Soret; Amal Tiss; Georges El Fakhri; Marie-Odile Habert; Florian Wiesinger; Aurélie Kas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240