Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of reconstruction and quantification of motion-corrected coronary PET-CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

Coronary PET shows promise in the detection of high-risk atherosclerosis, but there remains a need to optimize imaging and reconstruction techniques. We investigated the impact of reconstruction parameters and cardiac motion-correction in 18F Sodium Fluoride (18F-NaF) PET.

Methods

Twenty-two patients underwent 18F-NaF PET within 22 days of an acute coronary syndrome. Optimal reconstruction parameters were determined in a subgroup of six patients. Motion-correction was performed on ECG-gated data of all patients with optimal reconstruction. Tracer uptake was quantified in culprit and reference lesions by computing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in diastolic, summed, and motion-corrected images.

Results

Reconstruction using 24 subsets, 4 iterations, point-spread-function modelling, time of flight, and 5-mm post-filtering provided the highest median SNR (31.5) compared to 4 iterations 0-mm (22.5), 8 iterations 0-mm (21.1), and 8 iterations 5-mm (25.6; all P < .05). Motion-correction improved SNR of culprit lesions (n = 33) (24.5[19.9-31.5]) compared to diastolic (15.7[12.4-18.1]; P < .001) and summed data (22.1[18.9-29.2]; P < .001). Motion-correction increased the SNR difference between culprit and reference lesions (10.9[6.3-12.6]) compared to diastolic (6.2[3.6-10.3]; P = .001) and summed data (7.1 [4.8-11.6]; P = .001).

Conclusions

The number of iterations and extent of post-filtering has marked effects on coronary 18F-NaF PET quantification. Cardiac motion-correction improves discrimination between culprit and reference lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PET:

Positron emission tomography

CT:

Computed tomography

ACS:

Acute coronary syndrome

CTA:

Computed tomography angiography

ECG:

Electrocardiograph

SNR:

Signal-to-noise ratio

TBR:

Tissue-to-background ratio

SUV:

Standardized uptake value

References

  1. Joshi NV, Vesey AT, Williams MC, Shah AS, Calvert PA, Craighead FH, et al. 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for identification of ruptured and high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques: A prospective clinical trial. The Lancet 2014;383(9918):705-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee JM, Bang JI, Koo BK, Hwang D, Park J, Zhang J, et al. Clinical relevance of 18F-sodium fluoride positron-emission tomography in noninvasive identification of high-risk plaque in patients with coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10(11):e006704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kitagawa T, Yamamoto H, Toshimitsu S, Sasaki K, Senoo A, Kubo Y, et al. Data on analysis of coronary atherosclerosis on computed tomography and 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography. Data Brief 2017;13:341-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kitagawa T, Yamamoto H, Toshimitsu S, Sasaki K, Senoo A, Hirokawa Y, et al. 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography for molecular imaging of coronary atherosclerosis based on computed tomography analysis. Atherosclerosis 2017;263:385-92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubeaux M, Joshi N, Dweck M, Fletcher A, Motwani M, Germano G, et al. Motion-correction of 18F-sodium fluoride PET for imaging coronary atherosclerotic plaques. J Nucl Med 2016;57(1):54–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vercauteren T, Pennec X, Perchant A, Ayache N. Symmetric log-domain diffeomorphic registration: A demons-based approach. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2008;11:754-61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubeaux M, Joshi N, Dweck MR, Fletcher A, Motwani M, Thomson LE, et al. Demons vs Level-Set motion registration for coronary (18)F-sodium fluoride PET. In: Styner MA, Angelini ED, editors. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2016;9784:97843Y-1.

  8. Dru F, Vercauteren T. An ITK implementation of the symmetric log-domain diffeomorphic demons algorithm. 2017;1-11.

  9. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1431-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: A simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1519-27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tawakol A, Migrino RQ, Bashian GG, Bedri S, Vermylen D, Cury RC, et al. In vivo 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging provides a noninvasive measure of carotid plaque inflammation in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48(9):1818-24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S, Machac J, Rafique A, Farkouh M, et al. (18)Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation is highly reproducible: Implications for atherosclerosis therapy trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50(9):892-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Asabella AN, Ciccone MM, Cortese F, Scicchitano P, Gesualdo M, Zito A, et al. Higher reliability of 18F-FDG target background ratio compared to standardized uptake value in vulnerable carotid plaque detection: A pilot study. Ann Nucl Med 2014;28(6):571-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S, Machac J, Pinto CA, Tong C, et al. Atherosclerosis inflammation imaging with 18F-FDG PET: Carotid, iliac, and femoral uptake reproducibility, quantification methods, and recommendations. J Nucl Med 2008;49(6):871-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vesey AT, Jenkins WS, Irkle A, Moss A, Sng G, Forsythe RO, et al. 18F-fluoride and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke: Case–control study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10(3):e004976.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Huet P, Burg S, Le Guludec D, Hyafil F, Buvat I. Variability and uncertainty of 18F-FDG PET imaging protocols for assessing inflammation in atherosclerosis: Suggestions for improvement. J Nucl Med 2015;56(4):552-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shechter G, Resar JR, McVeigh ER. Displacement and velocity of the coronary arteries: Cardiac and respiratory motion. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25(3):369-75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48(6):932-45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012;53(11):1716-22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schaefferkoetter J, Casey M, Townsend D, Fakhri El G. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: A lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol 2013;58(5):1465-78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Clinical Research Imaging Centre, Edinburgh Heart Centre, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SB, UK

    Mhairi K. Doris MD, Jacek Kwiecinski MD, Marc R. Dweck MD & David E. Newby MD

  2. Department of Imaging and Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Mhairi K. Doris MD, Yuka Otaki MD, Sandeep K. Krishnan MD, Jacek Kwiecinski MD, Mathieu Rubeaux PhD, Sebastien Cadet MSc, Damini Dey PhD, Daniel S. Berman MD & Piotr J. Slomka PhD

  3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Adam Alessio PhD

  4. Department of Imaging Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA

    Tinsu Pan PhD

  5. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Piotr J. Slomka PhD

Authors
  1. Mhairi K. Doris MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuka Otaki MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandeep K. Krishnan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacek Kwiecinski MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mathieu Rubeaux PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adam Alessio PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tinsu Pan PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sebastien Cadet MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Damini Dey PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marc R. Dweck MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David E. Newby MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Daniel S. Berman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Piotr J. Slomka PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piotr J. Slomka PhD.

Additional information

Funding This research was supported in part by grant 1R01HL135557 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institute of Health (NHLBI/NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The study was also supported by a grant (“Cardiac Imaging Research Initiative”) from the Adelson Medical Research Foundation. David Newby (CH/09/002), Marc Dweck (FS/14/78), and Mhairi Doris (FS/17/79/33226) are supported by the British Heart Foundation. David Newby is also the recipient of a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award (WT103782AIA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doris, M.K., Otaki, Y., Krishnan, S.K. et al. Optimization of reconstruction and quantification of motion-corrected coronary PET-CT. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 27, 494–504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1317-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1317-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation