J M Mukherjee1, C Lindsay1, A Mukherjee2, P Olivier3, L Shao4, M A King1, R Licho1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655. 2. Aware, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts 01730. 3. Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, Ohio 44143. 4. ViewRay, Oakwood Village, Ohio 44146.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Head motion during PET brain imaging can cause significant degradation of image quality. Several authors have proposed ways to compensate for PET brain motion to restore image quality and improve quantitation. Head restraints can reduce movement but are unreliable; thus the need for alternative strategies such as data-driven motion estimation or external motion tracking. Herein, the authors present a data-driven motion estimation method using a preprocessing technique that allows the usage of very short duration frames, thus reducing the intraframe motion problem commonly observed in the multiple frame acquisition method. METHODS: The list mode data for PET acquisition is uniformly divided into 5-s frames and images are reconstructed without attenuation correction. Interframe motion is estimated using a 3D multiresolution registration algorithm and subsequently compensated for. For this study, the authors used 8 PET brain studies that used F-18 FDG as the tracer and contained minor or no initial motion. After reconstruction and prior to motion estimation, known motion was introduced to each frame to simulate head motion during a PET acquisition. To investigate the trade-off in motion estimation and compensation with respect to frames of different length, the authors summed 5-s frames accordingly to produce 10 and 60 s frames. Summed images generated from the motion-compensated reconstructed frames were then compared to the original PET image reconstruction without motion compensation. RESULTS: The authors found that our method is able to compensate for both gradual and step-like motions using frame times as short as 5 s with a spatial accuracy of 0.2 mm on average. Complex volunteer motion involving all six degrees of freedom was estimated with lower accuracy (0.3 mm on average) than the other types investigated. Preprocessing of 5-s images was necessary for successful image registration. Since their method utilizes nonattenuation corrected frames, it is not susceptible to motion introduced between CT and PET acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have shown that they can estimate motion for frames with time intervals as short as 5 s using nonattenuation corrected reconstructed FDG PET brain images. Intraframe motion in 60-s frames causes degradation of accuracy to about 2 mm based on the motion type.
PURPOSE: Head motion during PET brain imaging can cause significant degradation of image quality. Several authors have proposed ways to compensate for PET brain motion to restore image quality and improve quantitation. Head restraints can reduce movement but are unreliable; thus the need for alternative strategies such as data-driven motion estimation or external motion tracking. Herein, the authors present a data-driven motion estimation method using a preprocessing technique that allows the usage of very short duration frames, thus reducing the intraframe motion problem commonly observed in the multiple frame acquisition method. METHODS: The list mode data for PET acquisition is uniformly divided into 5-s frames and images are reconstructed without attenuation correction. Interframe motion is estimated using a 3D multiresolution registration algorithm and subsequently compensated for. For this study, the authors used 8 PET brain studies that used F-18 FDG as the tracer and contained minor or no initial motion. After reconstruction and prior to motion estimation, known motion was introduced to each frame to simulate head motion during a PET acquisition. To investigate the trade-off in motion estimation and compensation with respect to frames of different length, the authors summed 5-s frames accordingly to produce 10 and 60 s frames. Summed images generated from the motion-compensated reconstructed frames were then compared to the original PET image reconstruction without motion compensation. RESULTS: The authors found that our method is able to compensate for both gradual and step-like motions using frame times as short as 5 s with a spatial accuracy of 0.2 mm on average. Complex volunteer motion involving all six degrees of freedom was estimated with lower accuracy (0.3 mm on average) than the other types investigated. Preprocessing of 5-s images was necessary for successful image registration. Since their method utilizes nonattenuation corrected frames, it is not susceptible to motion introduced between CT and PET acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have shown that they can estimate motion for frames with time intervals as short as 5 s using nonattenuation corrected reconstructed FDG PET brain images. Intraframe motion in 60-s frames causes degradation of accuracy to about 2 mm based on the motion type.
Authors: David Mattes; David R Haynor; Hubert Vesselle; Thomas K Lewellen; William Eubank Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Terry S Yoo; Michael J Ackerman; William E Lorensen; Will Schroeder; Vikram Chalana; Stephen Aylward; Dimitris Metaxas; Ross Whitaker Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2002
Authors: Johannes Schindelin; Ignacio Arganda-Carreras; Erwin Frise; Verena Kaynig; Mark Longair; Tobias Pietzsch; Stephan Preibisch; Curtis Rueden; Stephan Saalfeld; Benjamin Schmid; Jean-Yves Tinevez; Daniel James White; Volker Hartenstein; Kevin Eliceiri; Pavel Tomancak; Albert Cardona Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Hans Herzog; Lutz Tellmann; Roger Fulton; Isabelle Stangier; Elena Rota Kops; Kay Bente; Christian Boy; Rene Hurlemann; Uwe Pietrzyk Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Oline V Olesen; Jenna M Sullivan; Tim Mulnix; Rasmus R Paulsen; Liselotte Højgaard; Bjarne Roed; Richard E Carson; Evan D Morris; Rasmus Larsen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Andrew J Montgomery; Kris Thielemans; Mitul A Mehta; Federico Turkheimer; Sanida Mustafovic; Paul M Grasby Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marcus Görge Ullisch; Jürgen Johann Scheins; Christoph Weirich; Elena Rota Kops; Abdullah Celik; Lutz Tellmann; Tony Stöcker; Hans Herzog; Nadim Jon Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Martin Nørgaard; Melanie Ganz; Claus Svarer; Vibe G Frokjaer; Douglas N Greve; Stephen C Strother; Gitte M Knudsen Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 6.200
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
Authors: Matthew G Spangler-Bickell; Samuel A Hurley; Timothy W Deller; Floris Jansen; Valentino Bettinardi; Mackenzie Carlson; Michael Zeineh; Greg Zaharchuk; Alan B McMillan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Michael A Levine; Joseph B Mandeville; Finnegan Calabro; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Daniel B Chonde; Kevin T Chen; Inki Hong; Julie C Price; Beatriz Luna; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.960
Authors: Jakob M Slipsager; Andreas H Ellegaard; Stefan L Glimberg; Rasmus R Paulsen; M Dylan Tisdall; Paul Wighton; André van der Kouwe; Lisbeth Marner; Otto M Henriksen; Ian Law; Oline V Olesen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eric Einspänner; Thies H Jochimsen; Osama Sabri; Bernhard Sattler; Johanna Harries; Andreas Melzer; Michael Unger; Richard Brown; Kris Thielemans Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar; David Iommi; Otto Muzik; Zacharias Chalampalakis; Eva-Maria Klebermass; Marius Hienert; Lucas Rischka; Rupert Lanzenberger; Andreas Hahn; Ekaterina Pataraia; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Johann Hummel; Thomas Beyer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 10.057