Martin Meyerspeer1, Ewald Unger2, Ivo Rausch3, Alejandra Valladares2, Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar2, Thomas Beyer2, Marcus Hacker4. 1. High-Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. QIMP Team, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20/4L, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 3. QIMP Team, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20/4L, 1090, Vienna, Austria. ivo.rausch@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET/MRI phantom studies are challenged by the need of phantom-specific attenuation templates to account for attenuation properties of the phantom material. We present a PET/MRI phantom built from MRI-visible material for which attenuation correction (AC) can be performed using the standard MRI-based AC. METHODS: A water-fillable phantom was 3D-printed with a commercially available MRI-visible polymer. The phantom had a cylindrical shape and the fillable compartment consisted of a homogeneous region and a region containing solid rods of different diameters. The phantom was filled with a solution of water and [18F]FDG. A 30 min PET/MRI acquisition including the standard Dixon-based MR-AC method was performed. In addition, a CT scan of the phantom was acquired on a PET/CT system. From the Dixon in-phase, opposed-phase and fat images, a phantom-specific AC map (Phantom MR-AC) was produced by separating the phantom material from the water compartment using a thresholding-based method and assigning fixed attenuation coefficients to the individual compartments. The PET data was reconstructed using the Phantom MR-AC, the original Dixon MR-AC, and an MR-AC just containing the water compartment (NoWall-AC) to estimate the error of ignoring the phantom walls. CT-based AC was employed as the reference standard. Average %-differences in measured activity between the CT corrected PET and the PET corrected with the other AC methods were calculated. RESULTS: The phantom housing and the liquid compartment were both visible and distinguishable from each other in the Dixon images and allowed the segmentation of a phantom-specific MR-based AC. Compared to the CT-AC PET, average differences in measured activity in the whole water compartment in the phantom of -0.3%, 9.4%, and -24.1% were found for Dixon phantom MR-AC, MR-AC, and NoWall-AC based PET, respectively. Average differences near the phantom wall in the homogeneous region were -0.3%, 6.6%, and -34.3%, respectively. Around the rods, activity differed from the CT-AC PET by 0.7%, 8.9%, and -45.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The presented phantom material is visible using standard MR sequences, and thus, supports the use of standard, phantom-independent MR measurements for MR-AC in PET/MRI phantom studies.
BACKGROUND:PET/MRI phantom studies are challenged by the need of phantom-specific attenuation templates to account for attenuation properties of the phantom material. We present a PET/MRI phantom built from MRI-visible material for which attenuation correction (AC) can be performed using the standard MRI-based AC. METHODS: A water-fillable phantom was 3D-printed with a commercially available MRI-visible polymer. The phantom had a cylindrical shape and the fillable compartment consisted of a homogeneous region and a region containing solid rods of different diameters. The phantom was filled with a solution of water and [18F]FDG. A 30 min PET/MRI acquisition including the standard Dixon-based MR-AC method was performed. In addition, a CT scan of the phantom was acquired on a PET/CT system. From the Dixon in-phase, opposed-phase and fat images, a phantom-specific AC map (Phantom MR-AC) was produced by separating the phantom material from the water compartment using a thresholding-based method and assigning fixed attenuation coefficients to the individual compartments. The PET data was reconstructed using the Phantom MR-AC, the original Dixon MR-AC, and an MR-AC just containing the water compartment (NoWall-AC) to estimate the error of ignoring the phantom walls. CT-based AC was employed as the reference standard. Average %-differences in measured activity between the CT corrected PET and the PET corrected with the other AC methods were calculated. RESULTS: The phantom housing and the liquid compartment were both visible and distinguishable from each other in the Dixon images and allowed the segmentation of a phantom-specific MR-based AC. Compared to the CT-AC PET, average differences in measured activity in the whole water compartment in the phantom of -0.3%, 9.4%, and -24.1% were found for Dixon phantom MR-AC, MR-AC, and NoWall-AC based PET, respectively. Average differences near the phantom wall in the homogeneous region were -0.3%, 6.6%, and -34.3%, respectively. Around the rods, activity differed from the CT-AC PET by 0.7%, 8.9%, and -45.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The presented phantom material is visible using standard MR sequences, and thus, supports the use of standard, phantom-independent MR measurements for MR-AC in PET/MRI phantom studies.
Authors: Angela Steinmann; R Jason Stafford; Gabriel Sawakuchi; Zhifei Wen; Laurence Court; Clifton D Fuller; David Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.071
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: 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: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; G Antoch; H Barthel; Z M Bhujwalla; S Biskup; S Biswal; M Bitzer; R Boellaard; R F Braren; C Brendle; K Brindle; A Chiti; C la Fougère; R Gillies; V Goh; M Goyen; M Hacker; L Heukamp; G M Knudsen; A M Krackhardt; I Law; J C Morris; K Nikolaou; J Nuyts; A A Ordonez; K Pantel; H H Quick; K Riklund; O Sabri; B Sattler; E G C Troost; M Zaiss; L Zender; Thomas Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Holger Schmidt; Sergios Gatidis; Ilja Bezrukov; Christina Schraml; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Nina Schwenzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julian M M Rogasch; Frank Hofheinz; Lutz van Heek; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Ronald Boellaard; Carsten Kobe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Richard Laforest; Hongyu An; Fernando Boada; Tuoyu Cao; David Faul; Bjoern Jakoby; Floris P Jansen; Bradley J Kemp; Paul E Kinahan; Peder Larson; Michael A Levine; Piotr Maniawski; Osama Mawlawi; Jonathan E McConathy; Alan B McMillan; Julie C Price; Abhejit Rajagopal; John Sunderland; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Kristen A Wangerin; Chunwei Ying; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 11.082