João M Sousa1, Lieuwe Appel2,3, Inés Merida4, Rolf A Heckemann5, Nicolas Costes4, Mathias Engström6, Stergios Papadimitriou7, Dag Nyholm7,8, Håkan Ahlström2,3, Alexander Hammers9, Mark Lubberink2,10. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. joao.sousa@surgsci.uu.se. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Medical Imaging Centre, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. CERMEP, Lyon, France. 5. Department of Radiation Physics, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. GE Healthcare, Waukesha, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 8. Department of Neurosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 9. King's College London & Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, King's College, London, UK. 10. Medical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A valid photon attenuation correction (AC) method is instrumental for obtaining quantitatively correct PET images. Integrated PET/MR systems provide no direct information on attenuation, and novel methods for MR-based AC (MRAC) are still under investigation. Evaluations of various AC methods have mainly focused on static brain PET acquisitions. In this study, we determined the validity of three MRAC methods in a dynamic PET/MR study of the brain. METHODS: Nine participants underwent dynamic brain PET/MR scanning using the dopamine transporter radioligand [11C]PE2I. Three MRAC methods were evaluated: single-atlas (Atlas), multi-atlas (MaxProb) and zero-echo-time (ZTE). The 68Ge-transmission data from a previous stand-alone PET scan was used as reference method. Parametric relative delivery (R1) images and binding potential (BPND) maps were generated using cerebellar grey matter as reference region. Evaluation was based on bias in MRAC maps, accuracy and precision of [11C]PE2I BPND and R1 estimates, and [11C]PE2I time-activity curves. BPND was examined for striatal regions and R1 in clusters of regions across the brain. RESULTS: For BPND, ZTE-MRAC showed the highest accuracy (bias < 2%) in striatal regions. Atlas-MRAC exhibited a significant bias in caudate nucleus (- 12%) while MaxProb-MRAC revealed a substantial, non-significant bias in the putamen (9%). R1 estimates had a marginal bias for all MRAC methods (- 1.0-3.2%). MaxProb-MRAC showed the largest intersubject variability for both R1 and BPND. Standardized uptake values (SUV) of striatal regions displayed the strongest average bias for ZTE-MRAC (~ 10%), although constant over time and with the smallest intersubject variability. Atlas-MRAC had highest variation in bias over time (+10 to - 10%), followed by MaxProb-MRAC (+5 to - 5%), but MaxProb showed the lowest mean bias. For the cerebellum, MaxProb-MRAC showed the highest variability while bias was constant over time for Atlas- and ZTE-MRAC. CONCLUSIONS: Both Maxprob- and ZTE-MRAC performed better than Atlas-MRAC when using a 68Ge transmission scan as reference method. Overall, ZTE-MRAC showed the highest precision and accuracy in outcome parameters of dynamic [11C]PE2I PET analysis with use of kinetic modelling.
BACKGROUND: A valid photon attenuation correction (AC) method is instrumental for obtaining quantitatively correct PET images. Integrated PET/MR systems provide no direct information on attenuation, and novel methods for MR-based AC (MRAC) are still under investigation. Evaluations of various AC methods have mainly focused on static brain PET acquisitions. In this study, we determined the validity of three MRAC methods in a dynamic PET/MR study of the brain. METHODS: Nine participants underwent dynamic brain PET/MR scanning using the dopamine transporter radioligand [11C]PE2I. Three MRAC methods were evaluated: single-atlas (Atlas), multi-atlas (MaxProb) and zero-echo-time (ZTE). The 68Ge-transmission data from a previous stand-alone PET scan was used as reference method. Parametric relative delivery (R1) images and binding potential (BPND) maps were generated using cerebellar grey matter as reference region. Evaluation was based on bias in MRAC maps, accuracy and precision of [11C]PE2I BPND and R1 estimates, and [11C]PE2I time-activity curves. BPND was examined for striatal regions and R1 in clusters of regions across the brain. RESULTS: For BPND, ZTE-MRAC showed the highest accuracy (bias < 2%) in striatal regions. Atlas-MRAC exhibited a significant bias in caudate nucleus (- 12%) while MaxProb-MRAC revealed a substantial, non-significant bias in the putamen (9%). R1 estimates had a marginal bias for all MRAC methods (- 1.0-3.2%). MaxProb-MRAC showed the largest intersubject variability for both R1 and BPND. Standardized uptake values (SUV) of striatal regions displayed the strongest average bias for ZTE-MRAC (~ 10%), although constant over time and with the smallest intersubject variability. Atlas-MRAC had highest variation in bias over time (+10 to - 10%), followed by MaxProb-MRAC (+5 to - 5%), but MaxProb showed the lowest mean bias. For the cerebellum, MaxProb-MRAC showed the highest variability while bias was constant over time for Atlas- and ZTE-MRAC. CONCLUSIONS: Both Maxprob- and ZTE-MRAC performed better than Atlas-MRAC when using a 68Ge transmission scan as reference method. Overall, ZTE-MRAC showed the highest precision and accuracy in outcome parameters of dynamic [11C]PE2I PET analysis with use of kinetic modelling.
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Martin L Lassen; Ronald Boellaard; Gaspar Delso; Maqsood Yaqub; Bernhard Sattler; Harald H Quick Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Yuji Nakamoto; Medhat Osman; Christian Cohade; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Steve Kohlmyer; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Karl D Spuhler; John Gardus; Yi Gao; Christine DeLorenzo; Ramin Parsey; Chuan Huang Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jorge Cabello; Mihai Avram; Felix Brandl; Mona Mustafa; Martin Scherr; Claudia Leucht; Stefan Leucht; Christian Sorg; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 3.138
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