Benjamin C Lee1, Jonathan B Moody1, Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière1, Amanda C Melvin2, Richard L Weinberg3, James R Corbett1,2, Venkatesh L Murthy2, Edward P Ficaro4,5. 1. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk St., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, 3025 Boardwalk St., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. EdFicaro@inviasolutions.com. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. EdFicaro@inviasolutions.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient motion can lead to misalignment of left ventricular (LV) volumes-of-interest (VOIs) and subsequently inaccurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) from dynamic PET myocardial perfusion images. We aimed to develop an image-based 3D-automated motion-correction algorithm that corrects the full dynamic sequence for translational motion, especially in the early blood phase frames (~ first minute) where the injected tracer activity is transitioning from the blood pool to the myocardium and where conventional image registration algorithms have had limited success. METHODS: We studied 225 consecutive patients who underwent dynamic rest/stress rubidium-82 chloride (82Rb) PET imaging. Dynamic image series consisting of 30 frames were reconstructed with frame durations ranging from 5 to 80 seconds. An automated algorithm localized the RV and LV blood pools in space and time and then registered each frame to a tissue reference image volume using normalized gradient fields with a modification of a signed distance function. The computed shifts and their global and regional flow estimates were compared to those of reference shifts that were assessed by three physician readers. RESULTS: The automated motion-correction shifts were within 5 mm of the manual motion-correction shifts across the entire sequence. The automated and manual motion-correction global MBF values had excellent linear agreement (R = 0.99, y = 0.97x + 0.06). Uncorrected flows outside of the limits of agreement with the manual motion-corrected flows were brought into agreement in 90% of the cases for global MBF and in 87% of the cases for global MFR. The limits of agreement for stress MBF were also reduced twofold globally and by fourfold in the RCA territory. CONCLUSIONS: An image-based, automated motion-correction algorithm for dynamic PET across the entire dynamic sequence using normalized gradient fields matched the results of manual motion correction in reducing bias and variance in MBF and MFR, particularly in the RCA territory.
BACKGROUND: Patient motion can lead to misalignment of left ventricular (LV) volumes-of-interest (VOIs) and subsequently inaccurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) from dynamic PET myocardial perfusion images. We aimed to develop an image-based 3D-automated motion-correction algorithm that corrects the full dynamic sequence for translational motion, especially in the early blood phase frames (~ first minute) where the injected tracer activity is transitioning from the blood pool to the myocardium and where conventional image registration algorithms have had limited success. METHODS: We studied 225 consecutive patients who underwent dynamic rest/stress rubidium-82 chloride (82Rb) PET imaging. Dynamic image series consisting of 30 frames were reconstructed with frame durations ranging from 5 to 80 seconds. An automated algorithm localized the RV and LV blood pools in space and time and then registered each frame to a tissue reference image volume using normalized gradient fields with a modification of a signed distance function. The computed shifts and their global and regional flow estimates were compared to those of reference shifts that were assessed by three physician readers. RESULTS: The automated motion-correction shifts were within 5 mm of the manual motion-correction shifts across the entire sequence. The automated and manual motion-correction global MBF values had excellent linear agreement (R = 0.99, y = 0.97x + 0.06). Uncorrected flows outside of the limits of agreement with the manual motion-corrected flows were brought into agreement in 90% of the cases for global MBF and in 87% of the cases for global MFR. The limits of agreement for stress MBF were also reduced twofold globally and by fourfold in the RCA territory. CONCLUSIONS: An image-based, automated motion-correction algorithm for dynamic PET across the entire dynamic sequence using normalized gradient fields matched the results of manual motion correction in reducing bias and variance in MBF and MFR, particularly in the RCA territory.
Authors: Jens D Hove; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Klaus F Kofoed; Jacob Freiberg; Henning Kelbaek Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria C Ziadi; Robert A Dekemp; Kathryn A Williams; Ann Guo; Benjamin J W Chow; Jennifer M Renaud; Terrence D Ruddy; Niroshi Sarveswaran; Rebecca E Tee; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Masanao Naya; Venkatesh L Murthy; Viviany R Taqueti; Courtney R Foster; Josh Klein; Mariya Garber; Sharmila Dorbala; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Frederick Resnic; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yunhan Yu; Chung Chan; Tianyu Ma; Yaqiang Liu; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Mika Naganawa; Olivia J Kelada; Mary Germino; Albert J Sinusas; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Roel S Driessen; Jonathon Leipsic; Rekha Raju; Chris Naoum; Juhani Knuuti; Maija Mäki; Richard S Underwood; James K Min; Kimberly Elmore; Wynand J Stuijfzand; Niels van Royen; Igor I Tulevski; Aernout G Somsen; Marc C Huisman; Arthur A van Lingen; Martijn W Heymans; Peter M van de Ven; Cornelis van Kuijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ian S Armstrong; Matthew J Memmott; Kimberley J Saint; Antoine Saillant; Charles Hayden; Parthiban Arumugam Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Jonathan B Moody; Tomoe Hagio; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 5.952