Andrew P Leynes1,2, Jaewon Yang3, Florian Wiesinger4, Sandeep S Kaushik5, Dattesh D Shanbhag5, Youngho Seo3,2, Thomas A Hope3,6, Peder E Z Larson3,2. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California andrew.leynes@ucsf.edu. 2. UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, and UCSF, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. GE Global Research, Munich, Germany. 5. GE Global Research, Bangalore, India; and. 6. Department of Radiology, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
Accurate quantification of uptake on PET images depends on accurate attenuation correction in reconstruction. Current MR-based attenuation correction methods for body PET use a fat and water map derived from a 2-echo Dixon MRI sequence in which bone is neglected. Ultrashort-echo-time or zero-echo-time (ZTE) pulse sequences can capture bone information. We propose the use of patient-specific multiparametric MRI consisting of Dixon MRI and proton-density-weighted ZTE MRI to directly synthesize pseudo-CT images with a deep learning model: we call this method ZTE and Dixon deep pseudo-CT (ZeDD CT). Methods: Twenty-six patients were scanned using an integrated 3-T time-of-flight PET/MRI system. Helical CT images of the patients were acquired separately. A deep convolutional neural network was trained to transform ZTE and Dixon MR images into pseudo-CT images. Ten patients were used for model training, and 16 patients were used for evaluation. Bone and soft-tissue lesions were identified, and the SUVmax was measured. The root-mean-squared error (RMSE) was used to compare the MR-based attenuation correction with the ground-truth CT attenuation correction. Results: In total, 30 bone lesions and 60 soft-tissue lesions were evaluated. The RMSE in PET quantification was reduced by a factor of 4 for bone lesions (10.24% for Dixon PET and 2.68% for ZeDD PET) and by a factor of 1.5 for soft-tissue lesions (6.24% for Dixon PET and 4.07% for ZeDD PET). Conclusion: ZeDD CT produces natural-looking and quantitatively accurate pseudo-CT images and reduces error in pelvic PET/MRI attenuation correction compared with standard methods.
Accurate quantification of uptake on PET images depends on accurate attenuation correction in reconstruction. Current MR-based attenuation correction methods for body PET use a fat and water map derived from a 2-echo Dixon MRI sequence in which bone is neglected. Ultrashort-echo-time or zero-echo-time (ZTE) pulse sequences can capture bone information. We propose the use of patient-specific multiparametric MRI consisting of Dixon MRI and proton-density-weighted ZTE MRI to directly synthesize pseudo-CT images with a deep learning model: we call this method ZTE and Dixon deep pseudo-CT (ZeDD CT). Methods: Twenty-six patients were scanned using an integrated 3-T time-of-flight PET/MRI system. Helical CT images of the patients were acquired separately. A deep convolutional neural network was trained to transform ZTE and Dixon MR images into pseudo-CT images. Ten patients were used for model training, and 16 patients were used for evaluation. Bone and soft-tissue lesions were identified, and the SUVmax was measured. The root-mean-squared error (RMSE) was used to compare the MR-based attenuation correction with the ground-truth CT attenuation correction. Results: In total, 30 bone lesions and 60 soft-tissue lesions were evaluated. The RMSE in PET quantification was reduced by a factor of 4 for bone lesions (10.24% for Dixon PET and 2.68% for ZeDD PET) and by a factor of 1.5 for soft-tissue lesions (6.24% for Dixon PET and 4.07% for ZeDD PET). Conclusion:ZeDD CT produces natural-looking and quantitatively accurate pseudo-CT images and reduces error in pelvic PET/MRI attenuation correction compared with standard methods.
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: Craig S Levin; Sri Harsha Maramraju; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Timothy W Deller; Gaspar Delso; Floris Jansen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-03-09 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: 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: Zhaolin Chen; Sharna D Jamadar; Shenpeng Li; Francesco Sforazzini; Jakub Baran; Nicholas Ferris; Nadim Jon Shah; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Yabo Fu; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jonathon A Nye; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.685