Liran Domachevsky1,2, Natalia Goldberg1, Miguel Gorenberg3, Hanna Bernstine1,2, David Groshar1,2, Onofrio A Catalano4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Assuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv 6971028, Israel. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bnai Zion Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3339419, Israel. 4. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tissues with low magnetic resonance (MR) signals, such as bones and lungs differ considerably in their attenuation properties, requiring special considerations for attenuation correction. We evaluated the impact of using the five-compartment segmentation model, which incorporates bones, in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR studies in patients undergoing evaluation for prostate cancer. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients underwent dedicated prostate 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR followed by whole-body 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. Coronal µmap images of the pelvis derived from four- and five-compartment segmentation models of magnetic resonance attenuation correction (MRAC) were produced. Standardized uptake values (SUV) calculated by the four and five-compartment MRAC models and by computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) were compared and correlated in normal prostate tissue, gluteus muscle, sacrum, intra-prostatic lesions and metastases (i.e., bone lesions and involved lymph nodes), and prostatic lesions to gluteus (L/G) ratio. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (mean age 69.4±9.3 years) were included in the study. Twenty-five patients presented for prostate cancer staging and one patient was evaluated for recurrent disease. There was a statistically significant difference between SUVs of the gluteus, sacrum, prostatic lesions and normal prostate tissue measured by the four-compartment vs. the five-compartment MRAC models, with a medium effect size. Very good to good correlation between SUV measured using the four-compartment MRAC model and SUV measured using the five-compartment model were noted in all lesional and non-lesional areas. Very good to good correlation was noted between four-compartment MRAC and CTAC SUVs of prostatic lesions and L/G ratio and between five-compartment MRAC and CTAC SUVs of prostatic lesions, L/G ratio and metastatic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR using the five-compartment segmentation model affects SUV measurements in prostate lesions and in the normal prostate and therefore patient follow-up studies must be conducted using the same segmentation model. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Tissues with low magnetic resonance (MR) signals, such as bones and lungs differ considerably in their attenuation properties, requiring special considerations for attenuation correction. We evaluated the impact of using the five-compartment segmentation model, which incorporates bones, in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR studies in patients undergoing evaluation for prostate cancer. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients underwent dedicated prostate 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR followed by whole-body 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. Coronal µmap images of the pelvis derived from four- and five-compartment segmentation models of magnetic resonance attenuation correction (MRAC) were produced. Standardized uptake values (SUV) calculated by the four and five-compartment MRAC models and by computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) were compared and correlated in normal prostate tissue, gluteus muscle, sacrum, intra-prostatic lesions and metastases (i.e., bone lesions and involved lymph nodes), and prostatic lesions to gluteus (L/G) ratio. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (mean age 69.4±9.3 years) were included in the study. Twenty-five patients presented for prostate cancer staging and one patient was evaluated for recurrent disease. There was a statistically significant difference between SUVs of the gluteus, sacrum, prostatic lesions and normal prostate tissue measured by the four-compartment vs. the five-compartment MRAC models, with a medium effect size. Very good to good correlation between SUV measured using the four-compartment MRAC model and SUV measured using the five-compartment model were noted in all lesional and non-lesional areas. Very good to good correlation was noted between four-compartment MRAC and CTAC SUVs of prostatic lesions and L/G ratio and between five-compartment MRAC and CTAC SUVs of prostatic lesions, L/G ratio and metastatic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR using the five-compartment segmentation model affects SUV measurements in prostate lesions and in the normal prostate and therefore patient follow-up studies must be conducted using the same segmentation model. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mark Thalgott; Charlotte Düwel; Isabel Rauscher; Matthias M Heck; Bernhard Haller; Andrei Gafita; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Tobias Maurer; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sonya Youngju Park; Claudia Zacharias; Caitlyn Harrison; Richard E Fan; Christian Kunder; Negin Hatami; Frederik Giesel; Pejman Ghanouni; Bruce Daniel; Andreas M Loening; Geoffrey A Sonn; Andrei Iagaru Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mohammad Al-Bayati; Johannes Grueneisen; Susanne Lütje; Lino M Sawicki; Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Stephan Tschirdewahn; Michael Forsting; Herbert Rübben; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu; Axel Wetter Journal: Urol Int Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Kirsten M Selnæs; Håkon Johansen; Brage Krüger-Stokke; Helena Bertilsson; Tone F Bathen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Maike E Lindemann; Marcel Gratz; Julian Kirchner; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Jan Ole Blumhagen; Matthias Fenchel; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Martin T Freitag; Jan P Radtke; Boris A Hadaschik; A Kopp-Schneider; Matthias Eder; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Matthias Roethke; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Fabio Zattoni; Gianluca Cassarino; Paolo Artioli; Diego Cecchin; Fabrizio Dal Moro; Pietro Zucchetta Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Valentina Brancato; Pasquale Borrelli; Vincenzo Alfano; Marco Picardi; Mario Mascalchi; Emanuele Nicolai; Marco Salvatore; Marco Aiello Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 4.506