Ahmadreza Rezaei1, Georg Schramm2, Stefanie M A Willekens2, Gaspar Delso3, Koen Van Laere2, Johan Nuyts2. 1. KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging (NMMI), Medical Imaging Research Center (MIRC), B-3000, Leuven, Belgium; and ahmadreza.rezaei@uz.kuleuven.be. 2. KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging (NMMI), Medical Imaging Research Center (MIRC), B-3000, Leuven, Belgium; and. 3. MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Abstract
Time-of-flight (TOF) PET data provide an effective means for attenuation correction (AC) when no (or incomplete or inaccurate) attenuation information is available. Since MR scanners provide little information on photon attenuation of different tissue types, AC in hybrid PET/MR scanners has always been challenging. In this contribution, we aim at validating the activity reconstructions of the maximum-likelihood ordered-subsets activity and attenuation (OSAA) reconstruction algorithm on a patient brain data set. We present a quantitative comparison of joint reconstructions with the current clinical gold standard-ordered-subsets expectation maximization-using CT-based AC in PET/CT, as well as the current state of the art in PET/MR, that is, zero time echo (ZTE)-based AC. Methods: The TOF PET emission data were initially used in a preprocessing stage to estimate crystal maps of efficiencies, timing offsets, and timing resolutions. Applying these additional corrections during reconstructions, OSAA, ZTE-based, and the vendor-provided atlas-based AC techniques were analyzed and compared with CT-based AC. In our initial study, we used the CT-based estimate of the expected scatter and later used the ZTE-based and OSAA attenuation estimates to compute the expected scatter contribution of the data during reconstructions. In all reconstructions, a maximum-likelihood scaling of the single-scatter simulation estimate to the emission data was used for scatter correction. The reconstruction results were analyzed in the 86 segmented regions of interest of the Hammers atlas. Results: Our quantitative analysis showed that, in practice, a tracer activity difference of +0.5% (±2.1%) and +0.1% (±2.3%) could be expected for the state-of-the-art ZTE-based and OSAA AC methods, respectively, in PET/MR compared with the clinical gold standard in PET/CT. Conclusion: Joint activity and attenuation estimation methods can provide an effective solution to the challenging AC problem for brain studies in hybrid TOF PET/MR scanners. With an accurate TOF-based (timing offsets and timing resolutions) calibration, and similar to the results of the state-of-the-art method in PET/MR, regional errors of joint TOF PET reconstructions are within a few percentage points.
Time-of-flight (TOF) PET data provide an effective means for attenuation correction (AC) when no (or incomplete or inaccurate) attenuation information is available. Since MR scanners provide little information on photon attenuation of different tissue types, AC in hybrid PET/MR scanners has always been challenging. In this contribution, we aim at validating the activity reconstructions of the maximum-likelihood ordered-subsets activity and attenuation (OSAA) reconstruction algorithm on a patient brain data set. We present a quantitative comparison of joint reconstructions with the current clinical gold standard-ordered-subsets expectation maximization-using CT-based AC in PET/CT, as well as the current state of the art in PET/MR, that is, zero time echo (ZTE)-based AC. Methods: The TOF PET emission data were initially used in a preprocessing stage to estimate crystal maps of efficiencies, timing offsets, and timing resolutions. Applying these additional corrections during reconstructions, OSAA, ZTE-based, and the vendor-provided atlas-based AC techniques were analyzed and compared with CT-based AC. In our initial study, we used the CT-based estimate of the expected scatter and later used the ZTE-based and OSAA attenuation estimates to compute the expected scatter contribution of the data during reconstructions. In all reconstructions, a maximum-likelihood scaling of the single-scatter simulation estimate to the emission data was used for scatter correction. The reconstruction results were analyzed in the 86 segmented regions of interest of the Hammers atlas. Results: Our quantitative analysis showed that, in practice, a tracer activity difference of +0.5% (±2.1%) and +0.1% (±2.3%) could be expected for the state-of-the-art ZTE-based and OSAA AC methods, respectively, in PET/MR compared with the clinical gold standard in PET/CT. Conclusion: Joint activity and attenuation estimation methods can provide an effective solution to the challenging AC problem for brain studies in hybrid TOF PET/MR scanners. With an accurate TOF-based (timing offsets and timing resolutions) calibration, and similar to the results of the state-of-the-art method in PET/MR, regional errors of joint TOF PET reconstructions are within a few percentage points.
Authors: Ahmadreza Rezaei; Michel Defrise; Girish Bal; Christian Michel; Maurizio Conti; Charles Watson; Johan Nuyts Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Alexander M Grant; Timothy W Deller; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Sri Harsha Maramraju; Gaspar Delso; Craig S Levin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Harshali Bal; Vladimir Y Panin; Guenther Platsch; Michel Defrise; Charles Hayden; Chloe Hutton; Benjamin Serrano; Benoit Paulmier; Michael E Casey Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Tetsuro Sekine; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Geoffrey Warnock; Alfred Buck; Martin Huellner; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Gaspar Delso Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Claes N Ladefoged; Ian Law; Udunna Anazodo; Keith St Lawrence; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Ciprian Catana; Ninon Burgos; M Jorge Cardoso; Sebastien Ourselin; Brian Hutton; Inés Mérida; Nicolas Costes; Alexander Hammers; Didier Benoit; Søren Holm; Meher Juttukonda; Hongyu An; Jorge Cabello; Mathias Lukas; Stephan Nekolla; Sibylle Ziegler; Matthias Fenchel; Bjoern Jakoby; Michael E Casey; Tammie Benzinger; Liselotte Højgaard; Adam E Hansen; Flemming L Andersen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Alexander Hammers; Richard Allom; Matthias J Koepp; Samantha L Free; Ralph Myers; Louis Lemieux; Tejal N Mitchell; David J Brooks; John S Duncan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Paul Lecoq; Christian Morel; John O Prior; Dimitris Visvikis; Stefan Gundacker; Etiennette Auffray; Peter Križan; Rosana Martinez Turtos; Dominique Thers; Edoardo Charbon; Joao Varela; Christophe de La Taille; Angelo Rivetti; Dominique Breton; Jean-François Pratte; Johan Nuyts; Suleman Surti; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Paul Marsden; Katia Parodi; Jose Maria Benlloch; Mathieu Benoit Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Marina Vergara; Ahmadreza Rezaei; Georg Schramm; Maria Jose Rodriguez-Alvarez; Jose Maria Benlloch Baviera; Johan Nuyts Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-05-12
Authors: June van Aalst; Jenny Ceccarini; Stefan Sunaert; Patrick Dupont; Michel Koole; Koen Van Laere Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Francesca De Luca; Martin Bolin; Lennart Blomqvist; Cecilia Wassberg; Heather Martin; Anna Falk Delgado Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 1.930