Edwin E G W Ter Voert1,2, Patrick Veit-Haibach3,4,5, Sangtae Ahn6, Florian Wiesinger7, M Mehdi Khalighi8, Craig S Levin9, Andrei H Iagaru10, Greg Zaharchuk11, Martin Huellner3,4,12, Gaspar Delso8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Edwin.terVoert@usz.ch. 2. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Edwin.terVoert@usz.ch. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, USA. 7. GE Global Research, München, Germany. 8. GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 12. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine clinically the value of time-of-flight (TOF) information in reducing PET artifacts and improving PET image quality and accuracy in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning. METHODS: A total 65 patients who underwent a comparative scan in a simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanner were included. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed, clinically examined, compared and scored. PET imaging artifacts were categorized as large or small implant-related artifacts, as dental implant-related artifacts, and as implant-unrelated artifacts. Differences in image quality, especially those related to (implant) artifacts, were assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact). RESULTS: A total of 87 image artifacts were found and evaluated. Four patients had large and eight patients small implant-related artifacts, 27 patients had dental implants/fillings, and 48 patients had implant-unrelated artifacts. The average score was 1.14 ± 0.82 for non-TOF PET images and 0.53 ± 0.66 for TOF images (p < 0.01) indicating that artifacts were less noticeable when TOF information was included. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that PET image artifacts are significantly mitigated with integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. The impact is predominantly seen in patients with significant artifacts due to metal implants.
PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine clinically the value of time-of-flight (TOF) information in reducing PET artifacts and improving PET image quality and accuracy in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning. METHODS: A total 65 patients who underwent a comparative scan in a simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanner were included. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed, clinically examined, compared and scored. PET imaging artifacts were categorized as large or small implant-related artifacts, as dental implant-related artifacts, and as implant-unrelated artifacts. Differences in image quality, especially those related to (implant) artifacts, were assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact). RESULTS: A total of 87 image artifacts were found and evaluated. Four patients had large and eight patients small implant-related artifacts, 27 patients had dental implants/fillings, and 48 patients had implant-unrelated artifacts. The average score was 1.14 ± 0.82 for non-TOF PET images and 0.53 ± 0.66 for TOF images (p < 0.01) indicating that artifacts were less noticeable when TOF information was included. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that PET image artifacts are significantly mitigated with integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. The impact is predominantly seen in patients with significant artifacts due to metal implants.
Authors: Chuanyong Bai; Paul E Kinahan; David Brasse; Claude Comtat; David W Townsend; Carolyn C Meltzer; Victor Villemagne; Martin Charron; Michel Defrise Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: André Salomon; Andreas Goedicke; Bernd Schweizer; Til Aach; Volkmar Schulz Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 10.048
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: 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: Cristina Lois; Bjoern W Jakoby; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Barker; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Vladimir Y Panin; Dan J Kadrmas; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benedikt Kranzbühler; Hannes Nagel; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Martin Huellner; Paul Stolzmann; Urs Muehlematter; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Urs J Muehlematter; Hannes W Nagel; Anton Becker; Julian Mueller; Kerstin N Vokinger; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Edwin E G T Ter Voert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Irene A Burger Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Hong Grafe; Maike E Lindemann; Verena Ruhlmann; Mark Oehmigen; Nader Hirmas; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian Law; Nathalie L Albert; Javier Arbizu; Ronald Boellaard; Alexander Drzezga; Norbert Galldiks; Christian la Fougère; Karl-Josef Langen; Egesta Lopci; Val Lowe; Jonathan McConathy; Harald H Quick; Bernhard Sattler; David M Schuster; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Michael Weller Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 9.236