Onofrio A Catalano1,2, Lale Umutlu3, Niccolo Fuin4, Matthew Louis Hibert4, Michele Scipioni5, Stefano Pedemonte4, Mark Vangel6, Andreea Maria Catana7, Ken Herrmann8, Felix Nensa3, David Groshar9, Umar Mahmood4, Bruce R Rosen4, Ciprian Catana4. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 149 13th St., Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. onofriocatalano@yahoo.it. 2. University of Naples "Parthenope", Naples, Italy. onofriocatalano@yahoo.it. 3. Department of Radiology, Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 149 13th St., Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. 5. Department of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 9. Assuta Medical Center and Rabin Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of upper abdominal PET/DCE-MRI with and without concurrent respiratory motion correction (MoCo). METHODS: MoCo PET/DCE-MRI of the upper abdomen was acquired in 44 consecutive oncologic patients and compared with non-MoCo PET/MRI. SUVmax and MTV of FDG-avid upper abdominal malignant lesions were assessed on MoCo and non-MoCo PET images. Image quality was compared between MoCo DCE-MRI and non-MoCo CE-MRI, and between fused MoCo PET/MRI and fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images. RESULTS: MoCo PET resulted in higher SUVmax (10.8 ± 5.45) than non-MoCo PET (9.62 ± 5.42) and lower MTV (35.55 ± 141.95 cm3) than non-MoCo PET (38.11 ± 198.14 cm3; p < 0.005 for both). The quality of MoCo DCE-MRI images (4.73 ± 0.5) was higher than that of non-MoCo CE-MRI images (4.53±0.71; p = 0.037). The quality of fused MoCo-PET/MRI images (4.96 ± 0.16) was higher than that of fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images (4.39 ± 0.66; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: MoCo PET/MRI provided qualitatively better images than non-MoCo PET/MRI, and upper abdominal malignant lesions demonstrated higher SUVmax and lower MTV on MoCo PET/MRI.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of upper abdominal PET/DCE-MRI with and without concurrent respiratory motion correction (MoCo). METHODS: MoCo PET/DCE-MRI of the upper abdomen was acquired in 44 consecutive oncologic patients and compared with non-MoCo PET/MRI. SUVmax and MTV of FDG-avid upper abdominal malignant lesions were assessed on MoCo and non-MoCo PET images. Image quality was compared between MoCo DCE-MRI and non-MoCo CE-MRI, and between fused MoCo PET/MRI and fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images. RESULTS: MoCo PET resulted in higher SUVmax (10.8 ± 5.45) than non-MoCo PET (9.62 ± 5.42) and lower MTV (35.55 ± 141.95 cm3) than non-MoCo PET (38.11 ± 198.14 cm3; p < 0.005 for both). The quality of MoCo DCE-MRI images (4.73 ± 0.5) was higher than that of non-MoCo CE-MRI images (4.53±0.71; p = 0.037). The quality of fused MoCo-PET/MRI images (4.96 ± 0.16) was higher than that of fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images (4.39 ± 0.66; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: MoCo PET/MRI provided qualitatively better images than non-MoCo PET/MRI, and upper abdominal malignant lesions demonstrated higher SUVmax and lower MTV on MoCo PET/MRI.
Authors: Benjamin Kaltenbach; Andrei Roman; Christoph Polkowski; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Ralf W Bauer; Renate Hammerstingl; Thomas J Vogl; Stephan Zangos Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Saraporn Bamrungchart; Engy M Tantaway; Esin C Midia; Mateus A Hernandes; Saowanee Srirattanapong; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Richard Manber; Kris Thielemans; Brian F Hutton; Anna Barnes; Sébastien Ourselin; Simon Arridge; Celia O'Meara; Simon Wan; David Atkinson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel R Balfour; Paul K Marsden; Irene Polycarpou; Christoph Kolbitsch; Andrew P King Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.819
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: Lisa A Min; Francesca Castagnoli; Wouter V Vogel; Jisk P Vellenga; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Regina G H Beets Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.629