-
Investigative radiology · Jan 2016
Comparative StudyComparison of Positron Emission Tomography Quantification Using Magnetic Resonance- and Computed Tomography-Based Attenuation Correction in Physiological Tissues and Lesions: A Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Study in 66 Patients.
- Ferdinand Seith, Sergios Gatidis, Holger Schmidt, Ilja Bezrukov, Christian la Fougère, Konstantin Nikolaou, Christina Pfannenberg, and Nina Schwenzer.
- From the *Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, and †Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Laboratory for Preclinical Imaging and Imaging Technology of the Werner Siemens Foundation, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University; ‡Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems; and §Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
- Invest Radiol. 2016 Jan 1; 51 (1): 66-71.
ObjectiveAttenuation correction (AC) in fully integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) systems plays a key role for the quantification of tracer uptake. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the accuracy of standardized uptake value (SUV) quantification using MR-based AC in direct comparison with computed tomography (CT)-based AC of the same PET data set on a large patient population.Materials And MethodsSixty-six patients (22 female; mean [SD], 61 [11] years) were examined by means of combined PET/CT and PET/MR (11C-choline, 18F-FDG, or 68Ga-DOTATATE) subsequently. Positron emission tomography images from PET/MR examinations were corrected with MR-derived AC based on tissue segmentation (PET(MR)). The same PET data were corrected using CT-based attenuation maps (μ-maps) derived from PET/CT after nonrigid registration of the CT to the MR-based μ-map (PET(MRCT)). Positron emission tomography SUVs were quantified placing regions of interest or volumes of interest in 6 different body regions as well as PET-avid lesions, respectively.ResultsThe relative differences of quantitative PET values when using MR-based AC versus CT-based AC were varying depending on the organs and body regions assessed. In detail, the mean (SD) relative differences of PET SUVs were as follows: -7.8% (11.5%), blood pool; -3.6% (5.8%), spleen; -4.4% (5.6%)/-4.1% (6.2%), liver; -0.6% (5.0%), muscle; -1.3% (6.3%), fat; -40.0% (18.7%), bone; 1.6% (4.4%), liver lesions; -6.2% (6.8%), bone lesions; and -1.9% (6.2%), soft tissue lesions. In 10 liver lesions, distinct overestimations greater than 5% were found (up to 10%). In addition, overestimations were found in 2 bone lesions and 1 soft tissue lesion adjacent to the lung (up to 28.0%).ConclusionsResults obtained using different PET tracers show that MR-based AC is accurate in most tissue types, with SUV deviations generally of less than 10%. In bone, however, underestimations can be pronounced, potentially leading to inaccurate SUV quantifications. In addition, SUV overestimations were found for some lesions close to lung borders. This has to be taken into account when comparing PET/CT- and PET/MR-derived SUVs.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?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.
.