• J. Nucl. Med. · Dec 2012

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of segmentation-based attenuation correction methods for PET/MRI: evaluation of bone and liver standardized uptake value with oncologic PET/CT data.

    • Joong Hyun Kim, Jae Sung Lee, In-Chan Song, and Dong Soo Lee.
    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
    • J. Nucl. Med. 2012 Dec 1; 53 (12): 1878-82.

    UnlabelledFor attenuation correction (AC) in PET/MRI systems, segmentation-based methods are most often used. However, the standardized uptake value (SUV) of lesions in the bone and liver, which have higher attenuation coefficients than other organs, can be underestimated, potentially leading to misinterpretation of clinical cases. Errors in SUV estimation are also dependent on the segmentation schemes used in the segmentation-based AC. In this study, this potential bias in SUV estimation using 4 different segmentation-based AC methods was evaluated for the PET/CT data of cancer patients with bone and liver lesions.MethodsForty patients who had spine or liver lesions and underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT participated (18 women and 22 men; 20 spine lesions and 20 liver lesions; mean age (± SD), 60.5 ± 11.4 y; mean body weight, 57.7 ± 10.4 kg). The patient body region was extracted from the CT image and categorized into 5 tissue groups (air, lungs, fat, water, and bone) using Hounsfield unit thresholds, which were determined from the CT histogram. Four segmentation-based AC methods (SLA [soft-tissue/lung/air], WFLA [water/fat/lung/air], SLAB [soft-tissue/lung/air/bone], and WFLAB [water/fat/lung/air/bone]) were compared with CT-based AC. The mean attenuation coefficient for each group was calculated from 40 CT images and assigned to the attenuation maps. PET sinograms were reconstructed using segmentation- and CT-based AC maps, and mean SUV in the lesions was compared.ResultsMean attenuation coefficients for air, lungs, fat, water, and bone were 0.0058, 0.0349, 0.0895, 0.0987, and 0.1178 cm(-1), respectively. In the spine lesions, the SUVs were underestimated by 16.4% ± 8.5% (SLA AC) and 14.7% ± 7.5% (WFLA AC) but not to a statistically significant extent for SLAB and WFLAB AC relative to CT AC. In the liver lesions, the SUVs were underestimated by 11.1% ± 2.6%, 8.1% ± 3.0%, 6.8% ± 3.8%, and 4.1% ± 3.8% with SLA, SLAB, WFLA, and WFLAB AC, respectively.ConclusionWithout bone segmentation, the SUVs of spine lesions were considerably underestimated; however, the bias was acceptable with bone segmentation. In liver lesions, the segmentation-based AC methods yielded a negative bias in SUV; however, inclusion of the bone and fat segments reduced the SUV bias. The results of this study will be useful for understanding organ-dependent bias in SUV between PET/CT and PET/MRI.

      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…