OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of fully automatic motion correction by data-driven respiratory gating (DDG) on positron emission tomography (PET) image quality, lesion detection and patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 149 patients undergoing PET/CT for cancer (re-)staging were retrospectively included. Patients underwent a PET/CT on a digital detector scanner and for every patient a PET data set where DDG was enabled (PETDDG) and as well as where DDG was not enabled (PETnonDDG) was reconstructed. All PET data sets were evaluated by two readers which rated the general image quality, motion effects and organ contours. Further, both readers reviewed all scans on a case-by-case basis and evaluated the impact of PETDDG on additional apparent lesion, change of report, and change of management. RESULTS: In 85% (n = 126) of the patients, at least one bed position was acquired using DDG, resulting in mean scan time increase of 4:37 min per patient in the whole study cohort (n = 149). General image quality was not rated differently for PETnonDDG and PETDDG images (p = 1.000) while motion effects (i.e. indicating general blurring) was rated significantly lower in PETDDG images and organ contours, including liver and spleen, were rated significantly sharper using PETDDG as compared to PETnonDDG (all p < 0.001). In 27% of patients, PETDDG resulted in a change of the report and in a total of 12 cases (8%), PETDDG resulted in a change of further clinical management. CONCLUSION: Deviceless DDG provided reliable fully automatic motion correction in clinical routine and increased lesion detectability and changed management in a considerable number of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DDG enables PET/CT with respiratory gating to be used routinely in clinical practice without external gating equipment needed.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of fully automatic motion correction by data-driven respiratory gating (DDG) on positron emission tomography (PET) image quality, lesion detection and patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 149 patients undergoing PET/CT for cancer (re-)staging were retrospectively included. Patients underwent a PET/CT on a digital detector scanner and for every patient a PET data set where DDG was enabled (PETDDG) and as well as where DDG was not enabled (PETnonDDG) was reconstructed. All PET data sets were evaluated by two readers which rated the general image quality, motion effects and organ contours. Further, both readers reviewed all scans on a case-by-case basis and evaluated the impact of PETDDG on additional apparent lesion, change of report, and change of management. RESULTS: In 85% (n = 126) of the patients, at least one bed position was acquired using DDG, resulting in mean scan time increase of 4:37 min per patient in the whole study cohort (n = 149). General image quality was not rated differently for PETnonDDG and PETDDG images (p = 1.000) while motion effects (i.e. indicating general blurring) was rated significantly lower in PETDDG images and organ contours, including liver and spleen, were rated significantly sharper using PETDDG as compared to PETnonDDG (all p < 0.001). In 27% of patients, PETDDG resulted in a change of the report and in a total of 12 cases (8%), PETDDG resulted in a change of further clinical management. CONCLUSION: Deviceless DDG provided reliable fully automatic motion correction in clinical routine and increased lesion detectability and changed management in a considerable number of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DDG enables PET/CT with respiratory gating to be used routinely in clinical practice without external gating equipment needed.
Authors: Richard Manber; Kris Thielemans; Brian F Hutton; Anna Barnes; Sébastien Ourselin; Simon Arridge; Celia O'Meara; Simon Wan; David Atkinson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lars C Gormsen; Ole L Munk; André H Dias; Paul Schleyer; Mikkel H Vendelbo; Karin Hjorthaug Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Alexander Maurer; Helen Schiesser; Stephan Skawran; Antonio G Gennari; Manuel Dittli; Irene A Burger; Cäcilia Mader; Christoph Berger; Daniel Eberli; Martin W Huellner; Michael Messerli Journal: BJR Open Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Benjamin Noto; Wolfgang Roll; Laura Zinken; Robert Rischen; Laura Kerschke; Georg Evers; Walter Heindel; Michael Schäfers; Florian Büther Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Pedro Fragoso Costa; Walter Jentzen; Alissa Brahmer; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Fadi Zarrad; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Ken Herrmann; Maurizio Conti; Robert Seifert; Miriam Sraieb; Manuel Weber; David Kersting Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.638