• J. Nucl. Med. · Apr 2015

    Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction.

    • Abolfazl Mehranian and Habib Zaidi.
    • Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
    • J. Nucl. Med. 2015 Apr 1; 56 (4): 635-41.

    UnlabelledTime-of-flight (TOF) PET/MR imaging is an emerging imaging technology with great capabilities offered by TOF to improve image quality and lesion detectability. We assessed, for the first time, the impact of TOF image reconstruction on PET quantification errors induced by MR imaging-based attenuation correction (MRAC) using simulation and clinical PET/CT studies.MethodsStandard 4-class attenuation maps were derived by segmentation of CT images of 27 patients undergoing PET/CT examinations into background air, lung, soft-tissue, and fat tissue classes, followed by the assignment of predefined attenuation coefficients to each class. For each patient, 4 PET images were reconstructed: non-TOF and TOF both corrected for attenuation using reference CT-based attenuation correction and the resulting 4-class MRAC maps. The relative errors between non-TOF and TOF MRAC reconstructions were compared with their reference CT-based attenuation correction reconstructions. The bias was locally and globally evaluated using volumes of interest (VOIs) defined on lesions and normal tissues and CT-derived tissue classes containing all voxels in a given tissue, respectively. The impact of TOF on reducing the errors induced by metal-susceptibility and respiratory-phase mismatch artifacts was also evaluated using clinical and simulation studies.ResultsOur results show that TOF PET can remarkably reduce attenuation correction artifacts and quantification errors in the lungs and bone tissues. Using classwise analysis, it was found that the non-TOF MRAC method results in an error of -3.4% ± 11.5% in the lungs and -21.8% ± 2.9% in bones, whereas its TOF counterpart reduced the errors to -2.9% ± 7.1% and -15.3% ± 2.3%, respectively. The VOI-based analysis revealed that the non-TOF and TOF methods resulted in an average overestimation of 7.5% and 3.9% in or near lung lesions (n = 23) and underestimation of less than 5% for soft tissue and in or near bone lesions (n = 91). Simulation results showed that as TOF resolution improves, artifacts and quantification errors are substantially reduced.ConclusionTOF PET substantially reduces artifacts and improves significantly the quantitative accuracy of standard MRAC methods. Therefore, MRAC should be less of a concern on future TOF PET/MR scanners with improved timing resolution.© 2015 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.