nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

26.01.2017 | Original Article

Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience

verfasst von: Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Sangtae Ahn, Florian Wiesinger, M. Mehdi Khalighi, Craig S. Levin, Andrei H. Iagaru, Greg Zaharchuk, Martin Huellner, Gaspar Delso

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 7/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Our objective was to determine clinically the value of time-of-flight (TOF) information in reducing PET artifacts and improving PET image quality and accuracy in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning.

Methods

A total 65 patients who underwent a comparative scan in a simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanner were included. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed, clinically examined, compared and scored. PET imaging artifacts were categorized as large or small implant-related artifacts, as dental implant-related artifacts, and as implant-unrelated artifacts. Differences in image quality, especially those related to (implant) artifacts, were assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact).

Results

A total of 87 image artifacts were found and evaluated. Four patients had large and eight patients small implant-related artifacts, 27 patients had dental implants/fillings, and 48 patients had implant-unrelated artifacts. The average score was 1.14 ± 0.82 for non-TOF PET images and 0.53 ± 0.66 for TOF images (p < 0.01) indicating that artifacts were less noticeable when TOF information was included.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that PET image artifacts are significantly mitigated with integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. The impact is predominantly seen in patients with significant artifacts due to metal implants.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Townsend DW. Combined positron emission tomography-computed tomography: the historical perspective. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2008;29:232–235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914–1922. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.092726.CrossRefPubMed

Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, Griesmer J, Hu Z, Maniawski P, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3091–3106. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/10/013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Veit-Haibach P, Kuhn F, Wiesinger F, Delso G, von Schulthess G. PET-MR imaging using a tri-modality PET/CT-MR system with a dedicated shuttle in clinical routine. MAGMA. 2013;26:25–35. doi:10.1007/s10334-012-0344-5.CrossRefPubMed

Nensa F, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Wetter A. Clinical applications of PET/MR: current status and future perspectives. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20:438–447. doi:10.5152/dir.14008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moses WW. Time of flight in PET revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1325–1330. doi:10.1109/TNS.2003.817319.CrossRef

Levin C, Glover G, Deller T, McDaniel D, Peterson W, Maramraju SH. Prototype time-of-flight PET ring integrated with a 3T MRI system for simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging. JNM Meeting Abstracts. 2013;54:148.

Surti S. Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:98–105. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.145029.CrossRefPubMed

Surti S, Karp JS. Advances in time-of-flight PET. Phys Med. 2016;32:12–22. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.12.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3:3. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Moses WW. Recent advances and future advances in time-of-flight PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2007;580:919–924. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.06.038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1147–1157. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tomitani T. Image reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time-of-flight assisted positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;28:4581–4589. doi:10.1109/TNS.1981.4335769.CrossRef

14.

El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:347–353. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.080382.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–470. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.044834.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Surti S, Karp JS. Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:373–384. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/2/013.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, Hubner KF, Barker DW, Casey ME, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237–245. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.068098.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Daube-Witherspoon ME, Surti S, Perkins AE, Karp JS. Determination of accuracy and precision of lesion uptake measurements in human subjects with time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:602–607. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.127035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Delso G, Khalighi M, Ter Voert E, Barbosa F, Sekine T, Hullner M, et al. Effect of time-of-flight information on PET/MR reconstruction artifacts: comparison of free-breathing versus breath-hold MR-based attenuation correction. Radiology. 2017:282;229–235. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152509.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hofmann M, Pichler B, Scholkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S93–S104. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-1007-7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Visvikis D, Monnier F, Bert J, Hatt M, Fayad H. PET/MR attenuation correction: where have we come from and where are we going? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1172–1175. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2748-0.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Wagenknecht G, Kaiser H-J, Mottaghy F, Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods and challenges. Magn Reson Mater Phys. 2013;26:99–113. doi:10.1007/s10334-012-0353-4.CrossRef

23.

Wollenweber SD, Ambwani S, Delso G, Lonn AHR, Mullick R, Wiesinger F, et al. Evaluation of an atlas-based PET head attenuation correction using PET/CT & MR patient data. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60:3383–3390. doi:10.1109/TNS.2013.2273417.CrossRef

24.

Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, Bundschuh RA, Chefd’hotel C, Ziegler SI, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:520–526. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.054726.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wollenweber SD, Ambwani S, Lonn AHR, Shanbhag DD, Thiruvenkadam S, Kaushik S, et al. Comparison of 4-class and continuous fat/water methods for whole-body, MR-based PET attenuation correction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60:3391–3398. doi:10.1109/TNS.2013.2278759.CrossRef

26.

Paulus DH, Quick HH, Geppert C, Fenchel M, Zhan Y, Hermosillo G, et al. Whole-body PET/MR imaging: quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based MR attenuation correction method including bone. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1061–1066. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.156000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Delso G, Wiesinger F, Sacolick LI, Kaushik SS, Shanbhag DD, Hullner M, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time MR imaging for the segmentation of the skull. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:417–422. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.149997.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Cabello J, Lukas M, Forster S, Pyka T, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI. MR-based attenuation correction using ultrashort-echo-time pulse sequences in dementia patients. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:423–429. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.146308.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sekine T, Ter Voert EE, Warnock G, Buck A, Huellner MW, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time attenuation correction for brain 18F-FDG PET/MRI: comparison with atlas attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1927–1932. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.175398.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nuyts J, Dupont P, Stroobants S, Benninck R, Mortelmans L, Suetens P. Simultaneous maximum a posteriori reconstruction of attenuation and activity distributions from emission sinograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999;18:393–403. doi:10.1109/42.774167.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Rezaei A, Defrise M, Bal G, Michel C, Conti M, Watson C, et al. Simultaneous reconstruction of activity and attenuation in time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012;31:2224–2233. doi:10.1109/tmi.2012.2212719.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Defrise M, Rezaei A, Nuyts J. Time-of-flight PET data determine the attenuation sinogram up to a constant. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:885–899. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/4/885.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Brendle C, Schmidt H, Oergel A, Bezrukov I, Mueller M, Schraml C, et al. Segmentation-based attenuation correction in positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance: erroneous tissue identification and its impact on positron emission tomography interpretation. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:339–346. doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000131.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Andersen FL, Ladefoged CN, Beyer T, Keller SH, Hansen AE, Hojgaard L, et al. Combined PET/MR imaging in neurology: MR-based attenuation correction implies a strong spatial bias when ignoring bone. Neuroimage. 2014;84:206–216. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.042.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Davison H, ter Voert EE, de Galiza BF, Veit-Haibach P, Delso G. Incorporation of time-of-flight information reduces metal artifacts in simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a simulation study. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:423–429. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000146.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Conti M. Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:155–168. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/1/010.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Bai C, Kinahan PE, Brasse D, Comtat C, Townsend DW, Meltzer CC, et al. An analytic study of the effects of attenuation on tumor detection in whole-body PET oncology imaging. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1855–1861.PubMed

38.

Turkington TG, Wilson JM. Attenuation artifacts and time-of-flight PET. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), New York, NY: IEEE; 2009. p. 2997–2999.

39.

Boellaard R, Hofman MB, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Accurate PET/MR quantification using time of flight MLAA image reconstruction. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014;16:469–477. doi:10.1007/s11307-013-0716-x.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:56S–65S.PubMed

41.

Zeimpekis KG, Barbosa F, Hullner M, ter Voert E, Davison H, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Clinical evaluation of PET image quality as a function of acquisition time in a new TOF-PET/MRI compared to TOF-PET/CT – initial results. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:735–44. doi:10.1007/s11307-015-0845-5.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Salomon A, Goedicke A, Schweizer B, Aach T, Schulz V. Simultaneous reconstruction of activity and attenuation for PET/MR. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2011;30:804–813. doi:10.1109/tmi.2010.2095464.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Clinical assessment of emission- and segmentation-based MR-guided attenuation correction in whole-body time-of-flight PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:877–883. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.154807.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Emission-based estimation of lung attenuation coefficients for attenuation correction in time-of-flight PET/MR. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:4813–4833. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/12/4813.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Mehranian A, Zaidi H. MR constrained simultaneous reconstruction of activity and attenuation maps in brain TOF-PET/MR imaging. EJNMMI Phys. 2014;1 Suppl 1:A55. doi:10.1186/2197-7364-1-s1-a55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Mollet P, Keereman V, Bini J, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Fayad ZA, Vandenberghe S. Improvement of attenuation correction in time-of-flight PET/MR imaging with a positron-emitting source. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:329–336. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.125989.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Mollet P, Keereman V, Clementel E, Vandenberghe S. Simultaneous MR-compatible emission and transmission imaging for PET using time-of-flight information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012;31:1734–1742. doi:10.1109/tmi.2012.2198831.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Rothfuss H, Panin V, Moor A, Young J, Hong I, Michel C, et al. LSO background radiation as a transmission source using time of flight. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:5483–5500. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/18/5483.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Ladefoged C, Andersen F, Keller S, Löfgren J, Hansen A, Holm S, et al. PET/MR imaging of the pelvis in the presence of endoprostheses: reducing image artifacts and increasing accuracy through inpainting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:594–601. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2316-4.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Schramm G, Maus J, Hofheinz F, Petr J, Lougovski A, Beuthien-Baumann B, et al. Evaluation and automatic correction of metal-implant-induced artifacts in MR-based attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MR imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:2713–2726. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/11/2713.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Carl M, Koch K, Du J. MR imaging near metal with undersampled 3D radial UTE-MAVRIC sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2013;69:27–36. doi:10.1002/mrm.24219.CrossRefPubMed

52.

den Harder JC, van Yperen GH, Blume UA, Bos C. Off-resonance suppression for multispectral MR imaging near metallic implants. Magn Reson Med. 2015;73:233–243. doi:10.1002/mrm.25126.CrossRef

53.

Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Shan T, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938–949. doi:10.1109/TMI.2010.2040188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience
verfasst von: Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert
Patrick Veit-Haibach
Sangtae Ahn
Florian Wiesinger
M. Mehdi Khalighi
Craig S. Levin
Andrei H. Iagaru
Greg Zaharchuk
Martin Huellner
Gaspar Delso
Publikationsdatum: 26.01.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 7/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3619-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2017

Feasibility of in vivo 18F-florbetaben PET/MR imaging of human carotid amyloid-β

18F-FDG PET/CT in Erdheim–Chester disease

Clinical feasibility of 90Y digital PET/CT for imaging microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization

Safety of multiple repeated cycles of 177Lu-octreotate in patients with recurrent neuroendocrine tumour

The round table approach in infective endocarditis & cardiovascular implantable electronic devices infections: make your e-Team come true

Molecular imaging of the human pulmonary vascular endothelium in pulmonary hypertension: a phase II safety and proof of principle trial