Miho Shidahara1,2, Benjamin A Thomas3,4, Nobuyuki Okamura5, Masanobu Ibaraki6, Keisuke Matsubara6, Senri Oyama7, Yoichi Ishikawa8, Shoichi Watanuki9, Ren Iwata8, Shozo Furumoto8, Manabu Tashiro9, Kazuhiko Yanai10, Kohsuke Gonda7, Hiroshi Watabe11. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. shidahara@med.tohoku.ac.jp. 2. Division of Cyclotron, Nuclear Medicine, Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. shidahara@med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. A*STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Research Centre, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK. 5. Division of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Research Institute for Brain and Blood Vessels-Akita, Akita, Japan. 7. Department of Medical Physics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 8. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. 9. Division of Cyclotron, Nuclear Medicine, Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. 10. Department of Pharmacology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 11. Division of Radiation Protection and Safety Control, Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To suppress partial volume effect (PVE) in brain PET, there have been many algorithms proposed. However, each methodology has different property due to its assumption and algorithms. Our aim of this study was to investigate the difference among partial volume correction (PVC) method for tau and amyloid PET study. METHODS: We investigated two of the most commonly used PVC methods, Müller-Gärtner (MG) and geometric transfer matrix (GTM) and also other three methods for clinical tau and amyloid PET imaging. One healthy control (HC) and one Alzheimer's disease (AD) PET studies of both [18F]THK5351 and [11C]PIB were performed using a Eminence STARGATE scanner (Shimadzu Inc., Kyoto, Japan). All PET images were corrected for PVE by MG, GTM, Labbé (LABBE), Regional voxel-based (RBV), and Iterative Yang (IY) methods, with segmented or parcellated anatomical information processed by FreeSurfer, derived from individual MR images. PVC results of 5 algorithms were compared with the uncorrected data. RESULTS: In regions of high uptake of [18F]THK5351 and [11C]PIB, different PVCs demonstrated different SUVRs. The degree of difference between PVE uncorrected and corrected depends on not only PVC algorithm but also type of tracer and subject condition. CONCLUSION: Presented PVC methods are straight-forward to implement but the corrected images require careful interpretation as different methods result in different levels of recovery.
PURPOSE: To suppress partial volume effect (PVE) in brain PET, there have been many algorithms proposed. However, each methodology has different property due to its assumption and algorithms. Our aim of this study was to investigate the difference among partial volume correction (PVC) method for tau and amyloid PET study. METHODS: We investigated two of the most commonly used PVC methods, Müller-Gärtner (MG) and geometric transfer matrix (GTM) and also other three methods for clinical tau and amyloid PET imaging. One healthy control (HC) and one Alzheimer's disease (AD) PET studies of both [18F]THK5351 and [11C]PIB were performed using a Eminence STARGATE scanner (Shimadzu Inc., Kyoto, Japan). All PET images were corrected for PVE by MG, GTM, Labbé (LABBE), Regional voxel-based (RBV), and Iterative Yang (IY) methods, with segmented or parcellated anatomical information processed by FreeSurfer, derived from individual MR images. PVC results of 5 algorithms were compared with the uncorrected data. RESULTS: In regions of high uptake of [18F]THK5351 and [11C]PIB, different PVCs demonstrated different SUVRs. The degree of difference between PVE uncorrected and corrected depends on not only PVC algorithm but also type of tracer and subject condition. CONCLUSION: Presented PVC methods are straight-forward to implement but the corrected images require careful interpretation as different methods result in different levels of recovery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Image processing; Partial volume correction; Tau PET; [18F]THK5351
Authors: Tzu-An Song; Fan Yang; Samadrita Roy Chowdhury; Kyungsang Kim; Keith A Johnson; Georges El Fakhri; Quanzheng Li; Joyita Dutta Journal: IEEE Trans Comput Imaging Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Adam P Mecca; Ming-Kai Chen; Ryan S O'Dell; Mika Naganawa; Takuya Toyonaga; Tyler A Godek; Joanna E Harris; Hugh H Bartlett; Wenzhen Zhao; Emmie R Banks; Gessica S Ni; Kelly Rogers; Jean Dominique Gallezot; Jim Ropchan; Paul R Emery; Nabeel B Nabulsi; Brent C Vander Wyk; Amy F T Arnsten; Yiyun Huang; Richard E Carson; Christopher H van Dyck Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-11-20 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Adam P Mecca; Ryan S O'Dell; Emily S Sharp; Emmie R Banks; Hugh H Bartlett; Wenzhen Zhao; Sylwia Lipior; Nina G Diepenbrock; Ming-Kai Chen; Mika Naganawa; Takuya Toyonaga; Nabeel B Nabulsi; Brent C Vander Wyk; Amy F T Arnsten; Yiyun Huang; Richard E Carson; Christopher H van Dyck Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Adam P Mecca; Nicole M Barcelos; Shuo Wang; Anna Brück; Nabeel Nabulsi; Beata Planeta-Wilson; Jennifer Nadelmann; Amanda L Benincasa; Jim Ropchan; Yiyun Huang; Joel Gelernter; Peter H Van Ness; Richard E Carson; Christopher H van Dyck Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Charles M Laymon; Davneet S Minhas; Sarah K Royse; Howard J Aizenstein; Ann D Cohen; Dana L Tudorascu; William E Klunk Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-07-20
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Heather J Wiste; Christopher G Schwarz; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Prashanthi Vemuri; Stephen D Weigand; Terry M Therneau; Dave S Knopman; Jeffrey L Gunter; David T Jones; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Kejal Kantarci; Rosebud O Roberts; Michelle M Mielke; Mary M Machulda; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.501