Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience
- 669 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsTime-of-flight Artifacts Positron emission tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Clinical research
Compliance with ethical standards
This study received funding from GE. Part of the study was carried out in the context of a GE-sponsored clinical trial to obtain CE marking and FDA approval of the TOF-PET/MR prototype.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare relationships with the following companies: P.V.-H. received IIS grants from Bayer Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare and Roche Pharmaceuticals, and speaker’s fees from GE Healthcare; G.Z. received research support and speaker’s fees from GE Healthcare; A.H.I. received research support and speaker’s fees from GE Healthcare; C.S.L. received research sponsorship from Siemens Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and GE Healthcare; S.A. and F.W. are employees of GE Global Research; M.M.K. and G.D. are employees of GE Healthcare.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 7.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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar