Marina Piccinelli1, John R Votaw2,3, Ernest V Garcia2. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Woodruff Memorial Research Building, Room 1203-C, 101 Woodruff Circle, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. mpiccin@emory.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Woodruff Memorial Research Building, Room 1203-C, 101 Woodruff Circle, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 3. , Alpharetta, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Motion artifacts, due to cardiac and respiratory cycles, myocardial cardiac creep, or gross patient movements, have been extensively investigated in the context of relative myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and PET. These movements have been identified as a major source of errors in image quantification and diagnosis. Recently, as dynamic PET quantification for myocardial blood flow assessment has entered clinical practice, similar questions have arisen on the impact of motion on final blood flow values. RECENT FINDINGS: While preliminary investigations have underlined the potential impact of these motions on MBF quantification, their correction on dynamic acquisition remains challenging and limited to research studies. Gross patient's body movements occur in a consistent number of cases, particularly during stress acquisition, typically involving a limited number of image frames. If undetected, these movements can lead to great differences in flow values and consequently misdiagnosis. Quality control routines can be applied to automatically inspect the shape of time activity curves and to help identify motion artifacts. Cyclic cardiac and respiratory motion may have a considerable impact on final flow values. Correction of gross body motion represents a priority in the context of optimizing absolute flow clinical routine utilization and protocol standardization.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Motion artifacts, due to cardiac and respiratory cycles, myocardial cardiac creep, or gross patient movements, have been extensively investigated in the context of relative myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and PET. These movements have been identified as a major source of errors in image quantification and diagnosis. Recently, as dynamic PET quantification for myocardial blood flow assessment has entered clinical practice, similar questions have arisen on the impact of motion on final blood flow values. RECENT FINDINGS: While preliminary investigations have underlined the potential impact of these motions on MBF quantification, their correction on dynamic acquisition remains challenging and limited to research studies. Gross patient's body movements occur in a consistent number of cases, particularly during stress acquisition, typically involving a limited number of image frames. If undetected, these movements can lead to great differences in flow values and consequently misdiagnosis. Quality control routines can be applied to automatically inspect the shape of time activity curves and to help identify motion artifacts. Cyclic cardiac and respiratory motion may have a considerable impact on final flow values. Correction of gross body motion represents a priority in the context of optimizing absolute flow clinical routine utilization and protocol standardization.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body motion artifacts; Cardiac PET; Cardiac and respiratory artifacts; MBF quantification
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Cigdem Akincioglu; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Usaf E Aladl; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mahadevan Rajaram; Abdel K Tahari; Andy H Lee; Martin A Lodge; Benjamin Tsui; Stephan Nekolla; Richard L Wahl; Frank M Bengel; Paco E Bravo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonghye Woo; Balaji Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Ryo Nakazato; Ludovic Le Meunier; Amit Ramesh; Joel Lazewatsky; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Erick Alexanderson; Rodrigo Jácome; Moises Jiménez; Edgar Romero; Aloha Meave; Ludovic Le Meunier; Magnus Dalhbom; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Heinrich Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Darko Zikic; René M Botnar; Ralph A Bundschuh; William Howe; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yuka Otaki; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Chih-Chun Wei; Paul Kavanagh; Ananya Singh; Tejas Parekh; Marcelo Di Carli; Jamshid Maddahi; Arkadiusz Sitek; Christopher Buckley; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathon A Nye; Marina Piccinelli; Doyeon Hwang; Charles David Cooke; Jin Chul Paeng; Joo Myung Lee; Sang-Geon Cho; Russell Folks; Hee-Seung Bom; Bon-Kwon Koo; Ernest V Garcia Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 4.506