| Literature DB >> 34049978 |
Camila Munoz1, Sam Ellis1, Stephan G Nekolla2, Karl P Kunze1, Teresa Vitadello3, Radhouene Neji1, Rene M Botnar1, Julia A Schnabel1, Andrew J Reader1, Claudia Prieto1.
Abstract
Simultaneous PET-MR imaging has shown potential for the comprehensive assessment of myocardial health from a single examination. Furthermore, MR-derived respiratory motion information has been shown to improve PET image quality by incorporating this information into the PET image reconstruction. Separately, MR-based anatomically guided PET image reconstruction has been shown to perform effective denoising, but this has been so far demonstrated mainly in brain imaging. To date the combined benefits of motion compensation and anatomical guidance have not been demonstrated for myocardial PET-MR imaging. This work addresses this by proposing a single cardiac PET-MR image reconstruction framework which fully utilises MR-derived information to allow both motion compensation and anatomical guidance within the reconstruction.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiology (basic/technical); Image Reconstruction; MR-based motion correction; MR-guided PET reconstruction; PET/MRI; cardiac PET-MR
Year: 2021 PMID: 34049978 PMCID: PMC8612202 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.254235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nucl Med ISSN: 0161-5505 Impact factor: 11.082
FIGURE 1.Overview of MRI-based improvements for proposed PET image reconstruction framework. MRI sequence provides high-quality end-expiration CMRA image and respiratory motion information (A), which can be used to improve PET image reconstruction by aligning PET μ-maps to CMRA position (B), performing MRI-based motion-correction (C), and performing MRI-guided PET image reconstruction (D).
FIGURE 2.Flowchart of proposed PET/MR image reconstruction pipeline.
FIGURE 3.Image noise and contrast in 5 oncology patients for each PET image reconstruction method. Proposed method provides highest myocardium-to-blood pool contrast levels (CRC) in all cases while avoiding high noise levels (SD) of unregularized PET image reconstruction.
FIGURE 4.Reconstructed images for each comparative method for 2 representative oncology patients (1 per row). Cyan arrows indicate myocardial defect-mimicking attenuation artifact, which is removed by aligning μ-map using CMRA image. Blue arrows highlight improved local contrast when using motion-corrected PET image reconstruction. Green arrows show reduced noise and improved sharpness when combining motion compensation with MRI-guided PET image reconstruction.
FIGURE 5.Example short-axis view of reconstructed 18F-FDG PET images for 3 selected CTO patients, and corresponding late-gadolinium enhancement (LGE) MR images, showing extent of myocardial scarring. Proposed method improves image quality while maintaining appearance of 18F-FDG hypointense defects (cyan arrowheads). MC-MLEM-200-μ-reg-gated images are shown to distinguish effects of motion compensation and guidance. In some cases, uncorrected PET images falsely depict defect as more extensive than it actually is (green arrowhead). LGE images are shown only for comparison and did not provide any information for guided PET reconstructions, which instead used high-resolution CMRA images.
Statistical Analysis of Effect of Comparative Methods in Terms of CRC and SD for Combined Patient Cohort (Chronic Total Occlusion Plus Oncology)
| Combined cohort ( | Data |
| Data |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMC-MLEM-63 | 0.92 ± 0.30 | 5,443 ± 1,636 | ||
| NMC-MLEM-63-μ-reg | 0.96 ± 0.30 | 0.033 (↑) | 5,512 ± 1,660 | 0.20 (↑) |
| NMC-MLEM-200-μ-reg | 1.23 ± 0.39 | 8.2 × 10−7 (↑) | 6,565 ± 1,805 | 1.2 × 10−8 (↑) |
| MC-MLEM-200-μ-reg | 1.34 ± 0.44 | 0.078 (↑) | 7,033 ± 1,974 | 5.0 × 10−5 (↑) |
| MC-MLEM-200-μ-reg-gated | 2.22 ± 0.72 | 1.1 × 10−5 (↑) | 7,752 ± 2,302 | 3.7 × 10−5 (↑) |
| MC-guided-MAPEM-μ-reg-gated | 2.24 ± 0.73 | 0.0026 (↑) | 6,504 ± 2,237 | 1.7 × 10−8 (↓) |
| Comparison | 1.2 × 10−7 (↑) | 2.8 × 10−5 (↑) | ||
P values comparing proposed method with clinical standard NMC-MLEM-63.
P values from 2-tailed paired t tests are shown, along with sign of change (↑ for positive, ↓ for negative), comparing method in each row with previous row.