OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of different metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms on Hounsfield unit (HU) and standardized uptake values (SUV) in a phantom setting and verify these results in patients with metallic implants undergoing oncological PET/CT examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this prospective study, PET-CT examinations of 28 oncological patients (14 female, 14 male, mean age 69.5 ± 15.2y) with 38 different metal implants were included. CT datasets were reconstructed using standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) without MAR, MAR in image space (MARIS) and iterative MAR (iMAR, hip algorithm). The three datasets were used for PET attenuation correction. SUV and HU measurements were performed at the site of the most prominent bright and dark band artifacts. Differences between HU and SUV values across the different reconstructions were compared using paired t-tests. Bonferroni correction was used to prevent alpha-error accumulation (p < 0.017). RESULTS: For bright band artifacts, MARIS led to a non-significant mean decrease of 12.0% (345 ± 315 HU) in comparison with WFBP (391 ± 293 HU), whereas iMAR led to a significant decrease of 68.3% (125 ± 185 HU, p < 0.017). For SUVmean, MARIS showed no significant effect in comparison with WFBP (WFBP: 0.99 ± 0.40, MARIS: 0.96 ± 0.39), while iMAR led to a significant decrease of 11.1% (0.88 ± 0.35, p < 0.017). Similar results were observed for dark band artifacts. CONCLUSION: iMAR significantly reduces artifacts caused by metal implants in CT and thus leads to a significant change of SUV measurements in bright and dark band artifacts compared with WFBP and MARIS, thus probably improving PET quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present work indicates that MAR algorithms such as iMAR algorithm in integrated PET/CT scanners are useful to improve CT image quality as well as PET quantification in the evaluation of tracer uptake adjacent to large metal implants. A detailed analysis of oncological patients with various large metal implants using different MAR algorithms in PET/CT has not been conducted yet.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of different metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms on Hounsfield unit (HU) and standardized uptake values (SUV) in a phantom setting and verify these results in patients with metallic implants undergoing oncological PET/CT examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this prospective study, PET-CT examinations of 28 oncological patients (14 female, 14 male, mean age 69.5 ± 15.2y) with 38 different metal implants were included. CT datasets were reconstructed using standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) without MAR, MAR in image space (MARIS) and iterative MAR (iMAR, hip algorithm). The three datasets were used for PET attenuation correction. SUV and HU measurements were performed at the site of the most prominent bright and dark band artifacts. Differences between HU and SUV values across the different reconstructions were compared using paired t-tests. Bonferroni correction was used to prevent alpha-error accumulation (p < 0.017). RESULTS: For bright band artifacts, MARIS led to a non-significant mean decrease of 12.0% (345 ± 315 HU) in comparison with WFBP (391 ± 293 HU), whereas iMAR led to a significant decrease of 68.3% (125 ± 185 HU, p < 0.017). For SUVmean, MARIS showed no significant effect in comparison with WFBP (WFBP: 0.99 ± 0.40, MARIS: 0.96 ± 0.39), while iMAR led to a significant decrease of 11.1% (0.88 ± 0.35, p < 0.017). Similar results were observed for dark band artifacts. CONCLUSION: iMAR significantly reduces artifacts caused by metal implants in CT and thus leads to a significant change of SUV measurements in bright and dark band artifacts compared with WFBP and MARIS, thus probably improving PET quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present work indicates that MAR algorithms such as iMAR algorithm in integrated PET/CT scanners are useful to improve CT image quality as well as PET quantification in the evaluation of tracer uptake adjacent to large metal implants. A detailed analysis of oncological patients with various large metal implants using different MAR algorithms in PET/CT has not been conducted yet.
Authors: Naveen Subhas; Andrew N Primak; Nancy A Obuchowski; Amit Gupta; Joshua M Polster; Andreas Krauss; Joseph P Iannotti Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: S Winklhofer; E Benninger; C Spross; F Morsbach; S Rahm; S Ross; B Jost; M J Thali; P Stolzmann; H Alkadhi; R Guggenberger Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Christoph Schabel; Sergios Gatidis; Malte Bongers; Fabian Hüttig; Georg Bier; Juergen Kupferschlaeger; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Lino Morris Sawicki; Niklas Heinzler; Karl Krzymyk; Martin Sedlmair; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charlotte S van der Vos; Anne I J Arens; James J Hamill; Christian Hofmann; Vladimir Y Panin; Antoi P W Meeuwis; Eric P Visser; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Christoph Schleich; Martin Sedlmair; Karl Krzymyk; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Gerhard W Goerres; Sibylle I Ziegler; Cyrill Burger; Thomas Berthold; Gustav K Von Schulthess; Alfred Buck Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Janna Morawitz; Ole Martin; Johannes Boos; Lino M Sawicki; Katrin Wingendorf; Martin Sedlmair; Eduards Mamlins; Christina Antke; Gerald Antoch; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-01