Matthew D Walker1, Andrew J Morgan2, Kevin M Bradley3,4, Daniel R McGowan2,5. 1. Radiation Physics and Protection, Oxford University Hospitals NHS FT, Oxford, United Kingdom matthew.walker@ouh.nhs.uk. 2. Radiation Physics and Protection, Oxford University Hospitals NHS FT, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Wales Research and Diagnostic PET Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; and. 5. Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
A data-driven method for respiratory gating in PET has recently been commercially developed. We sought to compare the performance of the algorithm with an external, device-based system for oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Methods: In total, 144 whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations were acquired, with a respiratory gating waveform recorded by an external, device-based respiratory gating system. In each examination, 2 of the bed positions covering the liver and lung bases were acquired with a duration of 6 min. Quiescent-period gating retaining approximately 50% of coincidences was then able to produce images with an effective duration of 3 min for these 2 bed positions, matching the other bed positions. For each examination, 4 reconstructions were performed and compared: data-driven gating (DDG) (we use the term DDG-retro to distinguish that we did not use the real-time R-threshold-based application of DDG that is available within the manufacturer's product), external device-based gating (real-time position management (RPM)-gated), no gating but using only the first 3 min of data (ungated-matched), and no gating retaining all coincidences (ungated-full). Lesions in the images were quantified and image quality scored by a radiologist who was masked to the method of data processing. Results: Compared with the other reconstruction options, DDG-retro increased the SUVmax and decreased the threshold-defined lesion volume. Compared with RPM-gated, DDG-retro gave an average increase in SUVmax of 0.66 ± 0.1 g/mL (n = 87, P < 0.0005). Although the results from the masked image evaluation were most commonly equivalent, DDG-retro was preferred over RPM-gated in 13% of examinations, whereas the opposite occurred in just 2% of examinations. This was a significant preference for DDG-retro (P = 0.008, n = 121). Liver lesions were identified in 23 examinations. Considering this subset of data, DDG-retro was ranked superior to ungated-full in 6 of 23 (26%) cases. Gated reconstruction using the external device failed in 16% of examinations, whereas DDG-retro always provided a clinically acceptable image. Conclusion: In this clinical evaluation, DDG-retro provided performance superior to that of the external device-based system. For most examinations the performance was equivalent, but DDG-retro had superior performance in 13% of examinations, leading to a significant preference overall.
A data-driven method for respiratory gating in PET has recently been commercially developed. We sought to compare the performance of the algorithm with an external, device-based system for oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Methods: In total, 144 whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations were acquired, with a respiratory gating waveform recorded by an external, device-based respiratory gating system. In each examination, 2 of the bed positions covering the liver and lung bases were acquired with a duration of 6 min. Quiescent-period gating retaining approximately 50% of coincidences was then able to produce images with an effective duration of 3 min for these 2 bed positions, matching the other bed positions. For each examination, 4 reconstructions were performed and compared: data-driven gating (DDG) (we use the term DDG-retro to distinguish that we did not use the real-time R-threshold-based application of DDG that is available within the manufacturer's product), external device-based gating (real-time position management (RPM)-gated), no gating but using only the first 3 min of data (ungated-matched), and no gating retaining all coincidences (ungated-full). Lesions in the images were quantified and image quality scored by a radiologist who was masked to the method of data processing. Results: Compared with the other reconstruction options, DDG-retro increased the SUVmax and decreased the threshold-defined lesion volume. Compared with RPM-gated, DDG-retro gave an average increase in SUVmax of 0.66 ± 0.1 g/mL (n = 87, P < 0.0005). Although the results from the masked image evaluation were most commonly equivalent, DDG-retro was preferred over RPM-gated in 13% of examinations, whereas the opposite occurred in just 2% of examinations. This was a significant preference for DDG-retro (P = 0.008, n = 121). Liver lesions were identified in 23 examinations. Considering this subset of data, DDG-retro was ranked superior to ungated-full in 6 of 23 (26%) cases. Gated reconstruction using the external device failed in 16% of examinations, whereas DDG-retro always provided a clinically acceptable image. Conclusion: In this clinical evaluation, DDG-retro provided performance superior to that of the external device-based system. For most examinations the performance was equivalent, but DDG-retro had superior performance in 13% of examinations, leading to a significant preference overall.
Authors: Joseph G Meier; Samuel A Einstein; Radwan H Diab; Lauren J Erasmus; Guofang Xu; Osama R Mawlawi Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ottavia Bertolli; Simon Arridge; Scott D Wollenweber; Charles W Stearns; Brian F Hutton; Kris Thielemans Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jeremy D P Hoisak; Katharina E Sixel; Romeo Tirona; Patrick C F Cheung; Jean-Philippe Pignol Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Barbara Bussels; Laurence Goethals; Michel Feron; Didier Bielen; Steven Dymarkowski; Paul Suetens; Karin Haustermans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eugene J Teoh; Daniel R McGowan; Ruth E Macpherson; Kevin M Bradley; Fergus V Gleeson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Messerli; Virginia Liberini; Hannes Grünig; Alexander Maurer; Stephan Skawran; Niklas Lohaus; Lars Husmann; Erika Orita; Josephine Trinckauf; Philipp A Kaufmann; Martin W Huellner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Jonathan Sigfridsson; Elin Lindström; Victor Iyer; Maria Holstensson; Irina Velikyan; Anders Sundin; Mark Lubberink Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Lars C Gormsen; Ole L Munk; André H Dias; Paul Schleyer; Mikkel H Vendelbo; Karin Hjorthaug Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Benjamin Noto; Wolfgang Roll; Laura Zinken; Robert Rischen; Laura Kerschke; Georg Evers; Walter Heindel; Michael Schäfers; Florian Büther Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.434