Respiratory gating is the standard to prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET. Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data is a promising alternative to gating approaches requiring additional hardware (e.g., pressure-sensitive belt gating [BG]). However, continuous-bed-motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially extended PET, compared with DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort and compared with BG using optimally gated (OG) and fully motion-corrected (elastic motion correction [EMOCO]) reconstructions. Methods: Fifty-six patients with suspected malignancies in the thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body 18F-FDG CBM PET/CT using DDG and BG. Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, OG and EMOCO reconstructions were used for BG and DDG. The metabolic volume, SUVmax, and SUVmean of lesions were compared among the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in the different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by 3 experts. Results: The global correlation coefficient between BG and DDG signals was 0.48 ± 0.11, peaking at 0.89 ± 0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO, and DDG-EMOCO than in static images (P < 0.001; median SUVmax: static, 14.3 ± 13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8 ± 15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5 ± 15.6; BG-OG, 19.6 ± 17.1; and DDG-OG, 18.9 ± 16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG or between BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions (P < 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and DDG for either EMOCO or OG reconstruction. Conclusion: DDG-based motion compensation of CBM PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to BG approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM PET systems.
Παρασκευή 2 Οκτωβρίου 2020
Whole-Body PET with Continuous Bed Motion
Clinical Evaluation of a Data-Driven Respiratory Gating Algorithm for Whole-Body PET with Continuous Bed Motion:
Respiratory gating is the standard to prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET. Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data is a promising alternative to gating approaches requiring additional hardware (e.g., pressure-sensitive belt gating [BG]). However, continuous-bed-motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially extended PET, compared with DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort and compared with BG using optimally gated (OG) and fully motion-corrected (elastic motion correction [EMOCO]) reconstructions. Methods: Fifty-six patients with suspected malignancies in the thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body 18F-FDG CBM PET/CT using DDG and BG. Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, OG and EMOCO reconstructions were used for BG and DDG. The metabolic volume, SUVmax, and SUVmean of lesions were compared among the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in the different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by 3 experts. Results: The global correlation coefficient between BG and DDG signals was 0.48 ± 0.11, peaking at 0.89 ± 0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO, and DDG-EMOCO than in static images (P < 0.001; median SUVmax: static, 14.3 ± 13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8 ± 15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5 ± 15.6; BG-OG, 19.6 ± 17.1; and DDG-OG, 18.9 ± 16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG or between BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions (P < 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and DDG for either EMOCO or OG reconstruction. Conclusion: DDG-based motion compensation of CBM PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to BG approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM PET systems.
Respiratory gating is the standard to prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET. Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data is a promising alternative to gating approaches requiring additional hardware (e.g., pressure-sensitive belt gating [BG]). However, continuous-bed-motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially extended PET, compared with DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort and compared with BG using optimally gated (OG) and fully motion-corrected (elastic motion correction [EMOCO]) reconstructions. Methods: Fifty-six patients with suspected malignancies in the thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body 18F-FDG CBM PET/CT using DDG and BG. Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, OG and EMOCO reconstructions were used for BG and DDG. The metabolic volume, SUVmax, and SUVmean of lesions were compared among the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in the different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by 3 experts. Results: The global correlation coefficient between BG and DDG signals was 0.48 ± 0.11, peaking at 0.89 ± 0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO, and DDG-EMOCO than in static images (P < 0.001; median SUVmax: static, 14.3 ± 13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8 ± 15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5 ± 15.6; BG-OG, 19.6 ± 17.1; and DDG-OG, 18.9 ± 16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG or between BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions (P < 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and DDG for either EMOCO or OG reconstruction. Conclusion: DDG-based motion compensation of CBM PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to BG approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM PET systems.
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου