Niccolo Fuin1, Stefano Pedemonte2, Onofrio A Catalano2, David Izquierdo-Garcia2, Andrea Soricelli3,4, Marco Salvatore3, Keith Heberlein5, Jacob M Hooker2, Koen Van Leemput2,6, Ciprian Catana2. 1. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts nfuin@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 3. SDN-Istituto di Ricerca Diagnostica e Nucleare, IRCCS, Naples, Italy. 4. University of Naples Parthenope, Department of Motor Sciences and Healthiness, Naples, Italy. 5. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, MR RD Collaborations, Charlestown, Massachusetts; and. 6. Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Abstract
We present a novel technique for accurate whole-body attenuation correction in the presence of metallic endoprosthesis, on integrated non-time-of-flight (non-TOF) PET/MRI scanners. The proposed implant PET-based attenuation map completion (IPAC) method performs a joint reconstruction of radioactivity and attenuation from the emission data to determine the position, shape, and linear attenuation coefficient (LAC) of metallic implants. Methods: The initial estimate of the attenuation map was obtained using the MR Dixon method currently available on the Siemens Biograph mMR scanner. The attenuation coefficients in the area of the MR image subjected to metal susceptibility artifacts are then reconstructed from the PET emission data using the IPAC algorithm. The method was tested on 11 subjects presenting 13 different metallic implants, who underwent CT and PET/MR scans. Relative mean LACs and Dice similarity coefficients were calculated to determine the accuracy of the reconstructed attenuation values and the shape of the metal implant, respectively. The reconstructed PET images were compared with those obtained using the reference CT-based approach and the Dixon-based method. Absolute relative change (aRC) images were generated in each case, and voxel-based analyses were performed. Results: The error in implant LAC estimation, using the proposed IPAC algorithm, was 15.7% ± 7.8%, which was significantly smaller than the Dixon- (100%) and CT- (39%) derived values. A mean Dice similarity coefficient of 73% ± 9% was obtained when comparing the IPAC- with the CT-derived implant shape. The voxel-based analysis of the reconstructed PET images revealed quantification errors (aRC) of 13.2% ± 22.1% for the IPAC- with respect to CT-corrected images. The Dixon-based method performed substantially worse, with a mean aRC of 23.1% ± 38.4%. Conclusion: We have presented a non-TOF emission-based approach for estimating the attenuation map in the presence of metallic implants, to be used for whole-body attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR scanners. The Graphics Processing Unit implementation of the algorithm will be included in the open-source reconstruction toolbox Occiput.io.
We present a novel technique for accurate whole-body attenuation correction in the presence of metallic endoprosthesis, on integrated non-time-of-flight (non-TOF) PET/MRI scanners. The proposed implant PET-based attenuation map completion (IPAC) method performs a joint reconstruction of radioactivity and attenuation from the emission data to determine the position, shape, and linear attenuation coefficient (LAC) of metallic implants. Methods: The initial estimate of the attenuation map was obtained using the MR Dixon method currently available on the Siemens Biograph mMR scanner. The attenuation coefficients in the area of the MR image subjected to metal susceptibility artifacts are then reconstructed from the PET emission data using the IPAC algorithm. The method was tested on 11 subjects presenting 13 different metallic implants, who underwent CT and PET/MR scans. Relative mean LACs and Dice similarity coefficients were calculated to determine the accuracy of the reconstructed attenuation values and the shape of the metal implant, respectively. The reconstructed PET images were compared with those obtained using the reference CT-based approach and the Dixon-based method. Absolute relative change (aRC) images were generated in each case, and voxel-based analyses were performed. Results: The error in implant LAC estimation, using the proposed IPAC algorithm, was 15.7% ± 7.8%, which was significantly smaller than the Dixon- (100%) and CT- (39%) derived values. A mean Dice similarity coefficient of 73% ± 9% was obtained when comparing the IPAC- with the CT-derived implant shape. The voxel-based analysis of the reconstructed PET images revealed quantification errors (aRC) of 13.2% ± 22.1% for the IPAC- with respect to CT-corrected images. The Dixon-based method performed substantially worse, with a mean aRC of 23.1% ± 38.4%. Conclusion: We have presented a non-TOF emission-based approach for estimating the attenuation map in the presence of metallic implants, to be used for whole-body attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR scanners. The Graphics Processing Unit implementation of the algorithm will be included in the open-source reconstruction toolbox Occiput.io.
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: Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Joaquin L Herraiz; Eduardo Alcain; Antonio S Montemayor; Lina Garcia-Cañamaque; Juan A Hernandez-Tamames; Yves Rozenholc; Norberto Malpica Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ahmadreza Rezaei; Michel Defrise; Girish Bal; Christian Michel; Maurizio Conti; Charles Watson; Johan Nuyts Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.048
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: Soo-Jung Choi; Kevin M Koch; Brian A Hargreaves; Kathryn J Stevens; Garry E Gold Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 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