Andrew P Leynes1, Jaewon Yang1, Dattesh D Shanbhag2, Sandeep S Kaushik2, Youngho Seo1,3,4, Thomas A Hope1, Florian Wiesinger5, Peder E Z Larson1,3,4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. 2. GE Global Research, Plot #122, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Phase 2, Hoodi Village, Whitefield Road, Bangalore, 560066, India. 3. UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94158, USA. 4. University of California, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. 5. GE Global Research, Freisinger Landstrasse 50, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study introduces a new hybrid ZTE/Dixon MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) method including bone density estimation for PET/MRI and quantifies the effects of bone attenuation on metastatic lesion uptake in the pelvis. METHODS: Six patients with pelvic lesions were scanned using fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in an integrated time-of-flight (TOF) PET/MRI system. For PET attenuation correction, MR imaging consisted of two-point Dixon and zero echo-time (ZTE) pulse sequences. A continuous-value fat and water pseudoCT was generated from a two-point Dixon MRI. Bone was segmented from the ZTE images and converted to Hounsfield units (HU) using a continuous two-segment piecewise linear model based on ZTE MRI intensity. The HU values were converted to linear attenuation coefficients (LAC) using a bilinear model. The bone voxels of the Dixon-based pseudoCT were replaced by the ZTE-derived bone to produce the hybrid ZTE/Dixon pseudoCT. The three different AC maps (Dixon, hybrid ZTE/Dixon, CTAC) were used to reconstruct PET images using a TOF-ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with a point-spread function model. Metastatic lesions were separated into two classes, bone lesions and soft tissue lesions, and analyzed. The MRAC methods were compared using a root-mean-squared error (RMSE), where the registered CTAC was taken as ground truth. RESULTS: The RMSE of the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax ) is 11.02% and 7.79% for bone (N = 6) and soft tissue lesions (N = 8), respectively, using Dixon MRAC. The RMSE of SUVmax for these lesions is significantly reduced to 3.28% and 3.94% when using the new hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC. Additionally, the RMSE for PET SUVs across the entire pelvis and all patients are 8.76% and 4.18%, for the Dixon and hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: A hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC method was developed and applied to pelvic regions in an integrated TOF PET/MRI, demonstrating improved MRAC. This new method included bone density estimation, through which PET quantification is improved.
PURPOSE: This study introduces a new hybrid ZTE/Dixon MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) method including bone density estimation for PET/MRI and quantifies the effects of bone attenuation on metastatic lesion uptake in the pelvis. METHODS: Six patients with pelvic lesions were scanned using fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in an integrated time-of-flight (TOF) PET/MRI system. For PET attenuation correction, MR imaging consisted of two-point Dixon and zero echo-time (ZTE) pulse sequences. A continuous-value fat and water pseudoCT was generated from a two-point Dixon MRI. Bone was segmented from the ZTE images and converted to Hounsfield units (HU) using a continuous two-segment piecewise linear model based on ZTE MRI intensity. The HU values were converted to linear attenuation coefficients (LAC) using a bilinear model. The bone voxels of the Dixon-based pseudoCT were replaced by the ZTE-derived bone to produce the hybrid ZTE/Dixon pseudoCT. The three different AC maps (Dixon, hybrid ZTE/Dixon, CTAC) were used to reconstruct PET images using a TOF-ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with a point-spread function model. Metastatic lesions were separated into two classes, bone lesions and soft tissue lesions, and analyzed. The MRAC methods were compared using a root-mean-squared error (RMSE), where the registered CTAC was taken as ground truth. RESULTS: The RMSE of the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax ) is 11.02% and 7.79% for bone (N = 6) and soft tissue lesions (N = 8), respectively, using Dixon MRAC. The RMSE of SUVmax for these lesions is significantly reduced to 3.28% and 3.94% when using the new hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC. Additionally, the RMSE for PET SUVs across the entire pelvis and all patients are 8.76% and 4.18%, for the Dixon and hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: A hybrid ZTE/Dixon MRAC method was developed and applied to pelvic regions in an integrated TOF PET/MRI, demonstrating improved MRAC. This new method included bone density estimation, through which PET quantification is improved.
Authors: Jiang Du; Michael Carl; Mark Bydder; Atsushi Takahashi; Christine B Chung; Graeme M Bydder Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2010-09-25 Impact factor: 2.229
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: Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
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: Ian B Malone; Richard E Ansorge; Guy B Williams; Peter J Nestor; T Adrian Carpenter; Tim D Fryer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-07 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: Pengjiang Qian; Yangyang Chen; Jung-Wen Kuo; Yu-Dong Zhang; Yizhang Jiang; Kaifa Zhao; Rose Al Helo; Harry Friel; Atallah Baydoun; Feifei Zhou; Jin Uk Heo; Norbert Avril; Karin Herrmann; Rodney Ellis; Bryan Traughber; Robert S Jones; Shitong Wang; Kuan-Hao Su; Raymond F Muzic Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Paul Kyu Han; Debra E Horng; Kuang Gong; Yoann Petibon; Kyungsang Kim; Quanzheng Li; Keith A Johnson; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang; Chao Ma Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.071
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