• Tetsuro Sekine, Ninon Burgos, Geoffrey Warnock, Martin Huellner, Alfred Buck, Edwin E G W Ter Voert, M Jorge Cardoso, Brian F Hutton, Sebastien Ourselin, Patrick Veit-Haibach, and Gaspar Delso.
• Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Radiology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan tetsuro.sekine@gmail.com.
• J. Nucl. Med. 2016 Aug 1; 57 (8): 1258-64.

UnlabelledIn this work, we assessed the feasibility of attenuation correction (AC) based on a multi-atlas-based method (m-Atlas) by comparing it with a clinical AC method (single-atlas-based method [s-Atlas]), on a time-of-flight (TOF) PET/MRI scanner.MethodsWe enrolled 15 patients. The median patient age was 59 y (age range, 31-80). All patients underwent clinically indicated whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging, restaging, or follow-up of malignant disease. All patients volunteered for an additional PET/MRI scan of the head (no additional tracer being injected). For each patient, 3 AC maps were generated. Both s-Atlas and m-Atlas AC maps were generated from the same patient-specific LAVA-Flex T1-weighted images being acquired by default on the PET/MRI scanner during the first 18 s of the PET scan. An s-Atlas AC map was extracted by the PET/MRI scanner, and an m-Atlas AC map was created using a Web service tool that automatically generates m-Atlas pseudo-CT images. For comparison, the AC map generated by PET/CT was registered and used as a gold standard. PET images were reconstructed from raw data on the TOF PET/MRI scanner using each AC map. All PET images were normalized to the SPM5 PET template, and (18)F-FDG accumulation was quantified in 67 volumes of interest (VOIs; automated anatomic labeling atlas). Relative (%diff) and absolute differences (|%diff|) between images based on each atlas AC and CT-AC were calculated. (18)F-FDG uptake in all VOIs and generalized merged VOIs were compared using the paired t test and Bland-Altman test.ResultsThe range of error on m-Atlas in all 1,005 VOIs was -4.99% to 4.09%. The |%diff| on the m-Atlas was improved by about 20% compared with s-Atlas (s-Atlas vs. m-Atlas: 1.49% ± 1.06% vs. 1.21% ± 0.89%, P < 0.01). In generalized VOIs, %diff on m-Atlas in the temporal lobe and cerebellum was significantly smaller (s-Atlas vs. m-Atlas: temporal lobe, 1.49% ± 1.37% vs. -0.37% ± 1.41%, P < 0.01; cerebellum, 1.55% ± 1.97% vs. -1.15% ± 1.72%, P < 0.01).ConclusionThe errors introduced using either s-Atlas or m-Atlas did not exceed 5% in any brain region investigated. When compared with the clinical s-Atlas, m-Atlas is more accurate, especially in regions close to the skull base.© 2016 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

32 keywords...

hide…