Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2014
Systematic Comparison of the Performance of Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging to Conventional PET/CT for ¹⁸F-FDG Brain Imaging in Patients Examined for Suspected Dementia.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hitz Stefan, Habekost Cornelia, Fürst Sebastian, Delso Gaspar, Förster Stefan, Ziegler Sibylle, Nekolla Stephan G, Souvatzoglou Michael, Beer Ambros J, Grimmer Timo, Eiber Matthias, Schwaiger Markus, Drzezga Alexander
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Technologic specifications of recently introduced integrated PET/MR instrumentation, such as MR-based attenuation correction, may particularly affect brain imaging procedures. To evaluate the qualitative performance of PET/MR in clinical neuroimaging, we systematically compared results obtained with integrated PET/MR with conventional PET/CT in the same patients examined for assessment of cognitive impairment.
METHODS: Thirty patients underwent a single-injection ((18)F-FDG), dual-imaging protocol including PET/CT and integrated PET/MR imaging in randomized order. Attenuation and scatter correction were performed using low-dose CT for the PET/CT and segmented Dixon MR imaging data for the PET/MR. Differences between PET/MR and PET/CT were assessed via region-of-interest (ROI)-based and voxel-based statistical group comparison. Analyses involved attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) data. Individual PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were compared versus a predefined independent control population, using 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projections.
RESULTS: Generally, lower measured PET signal values were obtained throughout the brain in ROI-based quantification of the PET signal for PET/MR as compared with PET/CT in AC and NAC data, independently of the scan order. After elimination of global effects, voxel-based and ROI-based group comparison still revealed significantly lower relative tracer signal in PET/MR images in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex but significantly higher relative signal in subcortical and basal regions of the brain than the corresponding PET/CT images of the AC data. In the corresponding NAC images, the discrepancies in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex were diminished, but the subcortical overestimation of tracer intensity by PET/MR persisted.
CONCLUSION: Considerable region-dependent differences were observed between brain imaging data acquired on the PET/MR, compared with corresponding PET/CT images, in patients evaluated for neurodegenerative disorders. These findings may only in part be explained by inconsistencies in the attenuation-correction procedures. The observed differences may interfere with semiquantitative evaluation and with individual qualitative clinical assessment and they need to be considered, for example, for clinical trials. Improved attenuation-correction algorithms and a PET/MR-specific healthy control database are recommended for reliable and consistent application of PET/MR for clinical neuroimaging.
METHODS: Thirty patients underwent a single-injection ((18)F-FDG), dual-imaging protocol including PET/CT and integrated PET/MR imaging in randomized order. Attenuation and scatter correction were performed using low-dose CT for the PET/CT and segmented Dixon MR imaging data for the PET/MR. Differences between PET/MR and PET/CT were assessed via region-of-interest (ROI)-based and voxel-based statistical group comparison. Analyses involved attenuation-corrected (AC) and non-attenuation-corrected (NAC) data. Individual PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were compared versus a predefined independent control population, using 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projections.
RESULTS: Generally, lower measured PET signal values were obtained throughout the brain in ROI-based quantification of the PET signal for PET/MR as compared with PET/CT in AC and NAC data, independently of the scan order. After elimination of global effects, voxel-based and ROI-based group comparison still revealed significantly lower relative tracer signal in PET/MR images in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex but significantly higher relative signal in subcortical and basal regions of the brain than the corresponding PET/CT images of the AC data. In the corresponding NAC images, the discrepancies in frontoparietal portions of the neocortex were diminished, but the subcortical overestimation of tracer intensity by PET/MR persisted.
CONCLUSION: Considerable region-dependent differences were observed between brain imaging data acquired on the PET/MR, compared with corresponding PET/CT images, in patients evaluated for neurodegenerative disorders. These findings may only in part be explained by inconsistencies in the attenuation-correction procedures. The observed differences may interfere with semiquantitative evaluation and with individual qualitative clinical assessment and they need to be considered, for example, for clinical trials. Improved attenuation-correction algorithms and a PET/MR-specific healthy control database are recommended for reliable and consistent application of PET/MR for clinical neuroimaging.