Literature DB >> 35313286

Impact of acquisition time and misregistration with CT on data-driven gated PET.

M Allan Thomas1, Joseph G Meier2, Osama R Mawlawi1, Peng Sun1, Tinsu Pan1.   

Abstract

Objective. Data-driven gating (DDG) can address patient motion issues and enhance PET quantification but suffers from increased image noise from utilization of <100% of PET data. Misregistration between DDG-PET and CT may also occur, altering the potential benefits of gating. Here, the effects of PET acquisition time and CT misregistration were assessed with a combined DDG-PET/DDG-CT technique.Approach. In the primary PET bed with lesions of interest and likely respiratory motion effects, PET acquisition time was extended to 12 min and a low-dose cine CT was acquired to enable DDG-CT. Retrospective reconstructions were created for both non-gated (NG) and DDG-PET using 30 s to 12 min of PET data. Both the standard helical CT and DDG-CT were used for attenuation correction of DDG-PET data. SUVmax, SUVpeak, and CNR were compared for 45 lesions in the liver and lung from 27 cases.Main results. For both NG-PET (p= 0.0041) and DDG-PET (p= 0.0028), only the 30 s acquisition time showed clear SUVmaxbias relative to the 3 min clinical standard. SUVpeakshowed no bias at any change in acquisition time. DDG-PET alone increased SUVmaxby 15 ± 20% (p< 0.0001), then was increased further by an additional 15 ± 29% (p= 0.0007) with DDG-PET/CT. Both 3 min and 6 min DDG-PET had lesion CNR statistically equivalent to 3 min NG-PET, but then increased at 12 min by 28 ± 48% (p= 0.0022). DDG-PET/CT at 6 min had comparable counts to 3 min NG-PET, but significantly increased CNR by 39 ± 46% (p< 0.0001).Significance. 50% counts DDG-PET did not lead to inaccurate or biased SUV-increased SUV resulted from gating. Improved registration from DDG-CT was equally as important as motion correction with DDG-PET for increasing SUV in DDG-PET/CT. Lesion detectability could be significantly improved when DDG-PET used equivalent counts to NG-PET, but only when combined with DDG-CT in DDG-PET/CT.
© 2022 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SUV; contrast-to-noise; data-driven gating; image quality; misregistration

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35313286      PMCID: PMC9128538          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac5f73

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   4.174


  12 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements.

Authors:  Michael C Adams; Timothy G Turkington; Joshua M Wilson; Terence Z Wong
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Influence of Statistical Fluctuation on Reproducibility and Accuracy of SUVmax and SUVpeak: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Go Akamatsu; Yasuhiko Ikari; Hiroyuki Nishida; Tomoyuki Nishio; Akihito Ohnishi; Akira Maebatake; Masayuki Sasaki; Michio Senda
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2015-08-13

3.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211.

Authors:  Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Improved Alignment of PET and CT Images in Whole-Body PET/CT in Cases of Respiratory Motion During CT.

Authors:  James J Hamill; Joseph G Meier; Sonia L Betancourt Cuellar; Bradley Sabloff; Jeremy J Erasmus; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Clinical Evaluation of a Data-Driven Respiratory Gating Algorithm for Whole-Body PET with Continuous Bed Motion.

Authors:  Florian Büther; Judson Jones; Robert Seifert; Lars Stegger; Paul Schleyer; Michael Schäfers
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Reliability of predicting image signal-to-noise ratio using noise equivalent count rate in PET imaging.

Authors:  Tingting Chang; Guoping Chang; John W Clark; Rami H Diab; Eric Rohren; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Design of respiration averaged CT for attenuation correction of the PET data from PET/CT.

Authors:  Pai-Chun Melinda Chi; Osama Mawlawi; Sadek A Nehmeh; Yusuf E Erdi; Peter A Balter; Dershan Luo; Radhe Mohan; Tinsu Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Effects of respiration-averaged computed tomography on positron emission tomography/computed tomography quantification and its potential impact on gross tumor volume delineation.

Authors:  Pai-Chun Melinda Chi; Osama Mawlawi; Dershan Luo; Zhongxing Liao; Homer A Macapinlac; Tinsu Pan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Non-Rigid Event-by-Event Continuous Respiratory Motion Compensated List-Mode Reconstruction for PET.

Authors:  Chung Chan; John Onofrey; Yiqiang Jian; Mary Germino; Xenophon Papademetris; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 10.048

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.