PURPOSE: After a decade of PET/MR, the case of attenuation correction (AC) remains open. The initial four-compartment (air, water, fat, soft tissue) Dixon-based AC scheme has since been expanded with several features, the latest being MR field-of-view extension and a bone atlas. As this potentially changes quantification, we evaluated the impact of these features in PET AC in prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Two hundred prostate cancer patients were examined with either 18F- or 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/MR. Qualitative and quantitative analysis (SUVmean, SUVmax, correlation, and statistical significance) was performed on images reconstructed using different AC schemes: Dixon, Dixon+MLAA, Dixon+HUGE, and Dixon+HUGE+bones for 18F-PSMA data; Dixon and Dixon+bones for 68Ga-PSMA data. Uptakes were compared using linear regression against standard Dixon. RESULTS: High correlation and no visually perceivable differences between all evaluated methods (r > 0.996) were found. The mean relative difference in lesion uptake of 18F-PSMA and 68Ga-PSMA remained, respectively, within 4% and 3% in soft tissue, and within 10% and 9% in bones for all evaluated methods. Bone registration errors were detected, causing mean uptake change of 5% in affected lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results and the encountered bone atlas registration inaccuracy, we deduce that including bones and extending the MR field-of-view did not introduce clinically significant differences in PSMA diagnostic accuracy and tracer uptake quantification in prostate cancer pelvic lesions, facilitating the analysis of serial studies respectively. However, in the absence of ground truth data, we advise against atlas-based methods when comparing serial scans for bone lesions.
PURPOSE: After a decade of PET/MR, the case of attenuation correction (AC) remains open. The initial four-compartment (air, water, fat, soft tissue) Dixon-based AC scheme has since been expanded with several features, the latest being MR field-of-view extension and a bone atlas. As this potentially changes quantification, we evaluated the impact of these features in PET AC in prostate cancerpatients. METHODS: Two hundred prostate cancerpatients were examined with either 18F- or 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/MR. Qualitative and quantitative analysis (SUVmean, SUVmax, correlation, and statistical significance) was performed on images reconstructed using different AC schemes: Dixon, Dixon+MLAA, Dixon+HUGE, and Dixon+HUGE+bones for 18F-PSMA data; Dixon and Dixon+bones for 68Ga-PSMA data. Uptakes were compared using linear regression against standard Dixon. RESULTS: High correlation and no visually perceivable differences between all evaluated methods (r > 0.996) were found. The mean relative difference in lesion uptake of 18F-PSMA and 68Ga-PSMA remained, respectively, within 4% and 3% in soft tissue, and within 10% and 9% in bones for all evaluated methods. Bone registration errors were detected, causing mean uptake change of 5% in affected lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results and the encountered bone atlas registration inaccuracy, we deduce that including bones and extending the MR field-of-view did not introduce clinically significant differences in PSMA diagnostic accuracy and tracer uptake quantification in prostate cancer pelvic lesions, facilitating the analysis of serial studies respectively. However, in the absence of ground truth data, we advise against atlas-based methods when comparing serial scans for bone lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attenuation correction; Bone atlas; PET quantification; Prostate cancer; Truncation correction; Whole-body PET/MR
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Robin M Heidemann; Matthias F Mueller; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.668
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: 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: 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