Mark Oehmigen1, Maike E Lindemann2, Marcel Gratz2,3, Julian Kirchner4, Verena Ruhlmann5, Lale Umutlu6, Jan Ole Blumhagen7, Matthias Fenchel7, Harald H Quick2,3. 1. High Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. Mark.Oehmigen@uni-due.de. 2. High Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. 3. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent studies have shown an excellent correlation between PET/MR and PET/CT hybrid imaging in detecting lesions. However, a systematic underestimation of PET quantification in PET/MR has been observed. This is attributable to two methodological challenges of MR-based attenuation correction (AC): (1) lack of bone information, and (2) truncation of the MR-based AC maps (μmaps) along the patient arms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of improved AC featuring a bone atlas and truncation correction on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR. METHODS: The MR-based Dixon method provides four-compartment μmaps (background air, lungs, fat, soft tissue) which served as a reference for PET/MR AC in this study. A model-based bone atlas provided bone tissue as a fifth compartment, while the HUGE method provided truncation correction. The study population comprised 51 patients with oncological diseases, all of whom underwent a whole-body PET/MR examination. Each whole-body PET dataset was reconstructed four times using standard four-compartment μmaps, five-compartment μmaps, four-compartment μmaps + HUGE, and five-compartment μmaps + HUGE. The SUVmax for each lesion was measured to assess the impact of each μmap on PET quantification. RESULTS: All four μmaps in each patient provided robust results for reconstruction of the AC PET data. Overall, SUVmax was quantified in 99 tumours and lesions. Compared to the reference four-compartment μmap, the mean SUVmax of all 99 lesions increased by 1.4 ± 2.5% when bone was added, by 2.1 ± 3.5% when HUGE was added, and by 4.4 ± 5.7% when bone + HUGE was added. Larger quantification bias of up to 35% was found for single lesions when bone and truncation correction were added to the μmaps, depending on their individual location in the body. CONCLUSION: The novel AC method, featuring a bone model and truncation correction, improved PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR imaging. Short reconstruction times, straightforward reconstruction workflow, and robust AC quality justify further routine clinical application of this method.
PURPOSE: Recent studies have shown an excellent correlation between PET/MR and PET/CT hybrid imaging in detecting lesions. However, a systematic underestimation of PET quantification in PET/MR has been observed. This is attributable to two methodological challenges of MR-based attenuation correction (AC): (1) lack of bone information, and (2) truncation of the MR-based AC maps (μmaps) along the patient arms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of improved AC featuring a bone atlas and truncation correction on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR. METHODS: The MR-based Dixon method provides four-compartment μmaps (background air, lungs, fat, soft tissue) which served as a reference for PET/MR AC in this study. A model-based bone atlas provided bone tissue as a fifth compartment, while the HUGE method provided truncation correction. The study population comprised 51 patients with oncological diseases, all of whom underwent a whole-body PET/MR examination. Each whole-body PET dataset was reconstructed four times using standard four-compartment μmaps, five-compartment μmaps, four-compartment μmaps + HUGE, and five-compartment μmaps + HUGE. The SUVmax for each lesion was measured to assess the impact of each μmap on PET quantification. RESULTS: All four μmaps in each patient provided robust results for reconstruction of the AC PET data. Overall, SUVmax was quantified in 99 tumours and lesions. Compared to the reference four-compartment μmap, the mean SUVmax of all 99 lesions increased by 1.4 ± 2.5% when bone was added, by 2.1 ± 3.5% when HUGE was added, and by 4.4 ± 5.7% when bone + HUGE was added. Larger quantification bias of up to 35% was found for single lesions when bone and truncation correction were added to the μmaps, depending on their individual location in the body. CONCLUSION: The novel AC method, featuring a bone model and truncation correction, improved PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR imaging. Short reconstruction times, straightforward reconstruction workflow, and robust AC quality justify further routine clinical application of this method.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attenuation correction; Bone atlas; PET quantification; Truncation correction; Whole-body PET/MR
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Robin M Heidemann; Matthias F Mueller; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: René Kartmann; Daniel H Paulus; Harald Braun; Bassim Aklan; Susanne Ziegler; Bharath K Navalpakkam; Markus Lentschig; Harald H Quick Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Marco Wiesmüller; Harald H Quick; Bharath Navalpakkam; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Philipp Ritt; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Carl C von Gall Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Thomas Beyer; Martin L Lassen; Ronald Boellaard; Gaspar Delso; Maqsood Yaqub; Bernhard Sattler; Harald H Quick Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Hong Grafe; Maike E Lindemann; Manuel Weber; Julian Kirchner; Ina Binse; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Harald H Quick Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Ronan Abgral; Maria Giovanna Trivieri; Marc R Dweck; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Gilles Boeykens; Max L Senders; Willem J M Mulder; Charalampos Tsoumpas; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 5.952
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: Borjana Bogdanovic; Andrei Gafita; Sylvia Schachoff; Matthias Eiber; Jorge Cabello; Wolfgang A Weber; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria I Menendez; Richard R Moore; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Chadwick L Wright; Soledad Fernandez; Rebecca D Jackson; Michael V Knopp Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann; Julian Kirchner; Janna Morawitz; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Ken Herrmann; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Tanja Fehm; Maike E Lindemann; Christian Buchbender; Gerald Antoch; Lino M Sawicki Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-02-07
Authors: Liran Domachevsky; Natalia Goldberg; Miguel Gorenberg; Hanna Bernstine; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-01
Authors: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Valentina Brancato; Pasquale Borrelli; Vincenzo Alfano; Marco Picardi; Mario Mascalchi; Emanuele Nicolai; Marco Salvatore; Marco Aiello Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 4.506