Jaewon Yang1, Florian Wiesinger2, Sandeep Kaushik3, Dattesh Shanbhag3, Thomas A Hope4, Peder E Z Larson4, Youngho Seo4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California jaewon.yang@ucsf.edu. 2. GE Global Research, Munich, Germany; and. 3. GE Global Research, Bangalore, India. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
In brain PET/MRI, the major challenge of zero-echo-time (ZTE)-based attenuation correction (ZTAC) is the misclassification of air/tissue/bone mixtures or their boundaries. Our study aimed to evaluate a sinus/edge-corrected (SEC) ZTAC (ZTACSEC), relative to an uncorrected (UC) ZTAC (ZTACUC) and a CT atlas-based attenuation correction (ATAC). Methods: Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI scans were obtained for 12 patients after PET/CT scans. Only data acquired at a bed station that included the head were used for this study. Using PET data from PET/MRI, we applied ZTACUC, ZTACSEC, ATAC, and reference CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) to PET attenuation correction. For ZTACUC, the bias-corrected and normalized ZTE was converted to pseudo-CT with air (-1,000 HU for ZTE < 0.2), soft-tissue (42 HU for ZTE > 0.75), and bone (-2,000 × [ZTE - 1] + 42 HU for 0.2 ≤ ZTE ≤ 0.75). Afterward, in the pseudo-CT, sinus/edges were automatically estimated as a binary mask through morphologic processing and edge detection. In the binary mask, the overestimated values were rescaled below 42 HU for ZTACSEC For ATAC, the atlas deformed to MR in-phase was segmented to air, inner air, soft tissue, and continuous bone. For the quantitative evaluation, PET mean uptake values were measured in twenty 1-mL volumes of interest distributed throughout brain tissues. The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test. An error histogram was used to show the distribution of voxel-based PET uptake differences. Results: Compared with CTAC, ZTACSEC achieved the overall PET quantification accuracy (0.2% ± 2.4%, P = 0.23) similar to CTAC, in comparison with ZTACUC (5.6% ± 3.5%, P < 0.01) and ATAC (-0.9% ± 5.0%, P = 0.03). Specifically, a substantial improvement with ZTACSEC (0.6% ± 2.7%, P < 0.01) was found in the cerebellum, in comparison with ZTACUC (8.1% ± 3.5%, P < 0.01) and ATAC (-4.1% ± 4.3%, P < 0.01). The histogram of voxel-based uptake differences demonstrated that ZTACSEC reduced the magnitude and variation of errors substantially, compared with ZTACUC and ATAC. Conclusion: ZTACSEC can provide an accurate PET quantification in brain PET/MRI, comparable to the accuracy achieved by CTAC, particularly in the cerebellum.
In brain PET/MRI, the major challenge of zero-echo-time (ZTE)-based attenuation correction (ZTAC) is the misclassification of air/tissue/bone mixtures or their boundaries. Our study aimed to evaluate a sinus/edge-corrected (SEC) ZTAC (ZTACSEC), relative to an uncorrected (UC) ZTAC (ZTACUC) and a CT atlas-based attenuation correction (ATAC). Methods: Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI scans were obtained for 12 patients after PET/CT scans. Only data acquired at a bed station that included the head were used for this study. Using PET data from PET/MRI, we applied ZTACUC, ZTACSEC, ATAC, and reference CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) to PET attenuation correction. For ZTACUC, the bias-corrected and normalized ZTE was converted to pseudo-CT with air (-1,000 HU for ZTE < 0.2), soft-tissue (42 HU for ZTE > 0.75), and bone (-2,000 × [ZTE - 1] + 42 HU for 0.2 ≤ ZTE ≤ 0.75). Afterward, in the pseudo-CT, sinus/edges were automatically estimated as a binary mask through morphologic processing and edge detection. In the binary mask, the overestimated values were rescaled below 42 HU for ZTACSEC For ATAC, the atlas deformed to MR in-phase was segmented to air, inner air, soft tissue, and continuous bone. For the quantitative evaluation, PET mean uptake values were measured in twenty 1-mL volumes of interest distributed throughout brain tissues. The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test. An error histogram was used to show the distribution of voxel-based PET uptake differences. Results: Compared with CTAC, ZTACSEC achieved the overall PET quantification accuracy (0.2% ± 2.4%, P = 0.23) similar to CTAC, in comparison with ZTACUC (5.6% ± 3.5%, P < 0.01) and ATAC (-0.9% ± 5.0%, P = 0.03). Specifically, a substantial improvement with ZTACSEC (0.6% ± 2.7%, P < 0.01) was found in the cerebellum, in comparison with ZTACUC (8.1% ± 3.5%, P < 0.01) and ATAC (-4.1% ± 4.3%, P < 0.01). The histogram of voxel-based uptake differences demonstrated that ZTACSEC reduced the magnitude and variation of errors substantially, compared with ZTACUC and ATAC. Conclusion:ZTACSEC can provide an accurate PET quantification in brain PET/MRI, comparable to the accuracy achieved by CTAC, particularly in the cerebellum.
Authors: Alexander M Grant; Timothy W Deller; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Sri Harsha Maramraju; Gaspar Delso; Craig S Levin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Claes N Ladefoged; Didier Benoit; Ian Law; Søren Holm; Andreas Kjær; Liselotte Højgaard; Adam E Hansen; Flemming L Andersen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yaotang Wu; Guangping Dai; Jerome L Ackerman; Mirko I Hrovat; Melvin J Glimcher; Brian D Snyder; Ara Nazarian; David A Chesler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tetsuro Sekine; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Geoffrey Warnock; Alfred Buck; Martin Huellner; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Gaspar Delso Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tri Huynh; Yaozong Gao; Jiayin Kang; Li Wang; Pei Zhang; Jun Lian; Dinggang Shen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Thomas Koesters; Kent P Friedman; Matthias Fenchel; Yiqiang Zhan; Gerardo Hermosillo; James Babb; Ileana O Jelescu; David Faul; Fernando E Boada; Timothy M Shepherd Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ninon Burgos; M Jorge Cardoso; Kris Thielemans; Marc Modat; Stefano Pedemonte; John Dickson; Anna Barnes; Rebekah Ahmed; Colin J Mahoney; Jonathan M Schott; John S Duncan; David Atkinson; Simon R Arridge; Brian F Hutton; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 10.048
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: 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: Kuang Gong; Jaewon Yang; Peder E Z Larson; Spencer C Behr; Thomas A Hope; Youngho Seo; Quanzheng Li Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-07-03
Authors: Mahdjoub Hamdi; Yutaka Natsuaki; Kristen A Wangerin; Hongyu An; Sarah St James; Paul E Kinahan; John J Sunderland; Peder E Z Larson; Thomas A Hope; Richard Laforest Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-09-20