Mizue Suzuki1, Yasutaka Fushimi2, Tomohisa Okada3, Takuya Hinoda1, Ryusuke Nakamoto1, Yoshiki Arakawa4, Nobukatsu Sawamoto5, Kaori Togashi1, Yuji Nakamoto1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. yfushimi@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. 3. Human Brain Research Center, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 5. Department of Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of a newly developed mobile PET system with MR-compatibility (flexible PET; fxPET), compared with conventional PET (cPET)/CT for brain imaging. METHODS: Twenty-one patients underwent cPET/CT with subsequent fxPET/MRI using 18F-FDG. As qualitative evaluation, we visually rated image quality of MR and PET images using a four-point scoring system. We evaluated overall image quality for MR, while we evaluated overall image quality, sharpness and lesion contrast. As quantitative evaluation, we compared registration accuracy between two modalities [(fxPET and MRI) and (cPET and CT)] measuring spatial coordinates. We also examined the accuracy of regional 18F-FDG uptake. RESULTS: All acquired images were of diagnostic quality and the number of detected lesions did not differ significantly between fxPET/MR and cPET/CT. Mean misregistration was significantly larger with fxPET/MRI than with cPET/CT. SUVmax and SUVmean for fxPET and cPET showed high correlations in the lesions (R = 0.84, 0.79; P < 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). In normal structures, we also showed high correlations of SUVmax (R = 0.85, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and SUVmean (R = 0.83, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) in bilateral caudate nuclei and a moderate correlation of SUVmax (R = 0.65) and SUVmean (R = 0.63) in vermis. CONCLUSIONS: The fxPET/MRI system showed image quality within the diagnostic range, registration accuracy below 3 mm and regional 18F-FDG uptake highly correlated with that of cPET/CT.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of a newly developed mobile PET system with MR-compatibility (flexible PET; fxPET), compared with conventional PET (cPET)/CT for brain imaging. METHODS: Twenty-one patients underwent cPET/CT with subsequent fxPET/MRI using 18F-FDG. As qualitative evaluation, we visually rated image quality of MR and PET images using a four-point scoring system. We evaluated overall image quality for MR, while we evaluated overall image quality, sharpness and lesion contrast. As quantitative evaluation, we compared registration accuracy between two modalities [(fxPET and MRI) and (cPET and CT)] measuring spatial coordinates. We also examined the accuracy of regional 18F-FDG uptake. RESULTS: All acquired images were of diagnostic quality and the number of detected lesions did not differ significantly between fxPET/MR and cPET/CT. Mean misregistration was significantly larger with fxPET/MRI than with cPET/CT. SUVmax and SUVmean for fxPET and cPET showed high correlations in the lesions (R = 0.84, 0.79; P < 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). In normal structures, we also showed high correlations of SUVmax (R = 0.85, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and SUVmean (R = 0.83, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) in bilateral caudate nuclei and a moderate correlation of SUVmax (R = 0.65) and SUVmean (R = 0.63) in vermis. CONCLUSIONS: The fxPET/MRI system showed image quality within the diagnostic range, registration accuracy below 3 mm and regional 18F-FDG uptake highly correlated with that of cPET/CT.
Authors: Alexander Drzezga; Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Ambros J Beer; Sebastian Fürst; Axel Martinez-Möller; Stephan G Nekolla; Sibylle Ziegler; Carl Ganter; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Christopher Scarfone; William C Lavely; Anthony J Cmelak; Dominique Delbeke; William H Martin; Dean Billheimer; Dennis E Hallahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rachel Bar-Shalom; Nikolai Yefremov; Ludmila Guralnik; Diana Gaitini; Alex Frenkel; Abraham Kuten; Hernan Altman; Zohar Keidar; Ora Israel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057