A systematic performance evaluation of head motion correction techniques for 3 commercial PET scanners using a reproducible experimental acquisition protocol
- 125 Downloads
Subject’s motion during brain PET scan degrades spatial resolution and quantification of PET images. To suppress these effects, rigid-body motion correction systems have been installed in commercial PET scanners. In this study, we systematically compare the accuracy of motion correction among 3 commercial PET scanners using a reproducible experimental acquisition protocol.
A cylindrical phantom with two 22Na point sources was placed on a customized base to enable two types of motion, 5° yaw and 15° pitch rotations. Repetitive PET scans (5 min × 5 times) were performed at rest and under 2 motion conditions using 3 clinical PET scanners: the Eminence STARGATE G/L PET/CT (STARGATE) (Shimadzu Corp.), the SET-3000 B/X PET (SET-3000) (Shimadzu Corp.), and the Biograph mMR PET/MR (mMR) (Siemens Healthcare) systems. For STARGATE and SET-3000, the Polaris Vicra (Northern Digital Inc.) optical tracking system was used for frame-by-frame motion correction. For Biograph mMR, sequential MR images were simultaneously acquired with PET and used for LOR-based motion correction. All PET images were reconstructed by FBP algorithm with 1 × 1 mm pixel size. To evaluate the accuracy of motion correction, FWHMs and spherical ROI values were analyzed.
The percent differences (%diff) in averaged FWHMs of point sources at 4 cm off-center between motion-corrected and static images were 0.77 ± 0.16 (STARGATE), 2.4 ± 0.34 (SET-3000), and 11 ± 1.0% (mMR) for a 5° yaw and 2.3 ± 0.37 (STARGATE) and 1.1 ± 0.60 (SET-3000) for a 15° pitch respectively. The averaged %diff between ROI values of motion-corrected images and static images were less than 2.0% for all conditions.
In this study, we proposed a reproducible experimental framework to allow the systematic validation and comparison of multiple motion tracking and correction methodologies among different PET/CT and PET/MR commercial systems. Our proposed validation platform may be useful for future studies evaluating state-of-the-art motion correction strategies in clinical PET imaging.
KeywordsBrain PET Motion-correction PET/MR Optical tracking Reproducibility
We would like to thank the research staff at Advanced Clinical Research Center, Fukushima Medical University for helpful support to our experiments. This study was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 15K08687) and (B) (No 17H04118) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japanese Government.
This study was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 15K08687) and (B) (No 17H04118) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japanese Government.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 20.Montgomery AJ, Thielemans K, Mehta MA, Turkheimer F, Mustafovic S, Grasby PM. Correction of head movement on PET studies: comparison of methods. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(12):1936–44.Google Scholar
- 23.Feng T, Yang D, Zhu W, Dong Y, Li H. Real-time data-driven rigid motion detection and correction for brain scan with listmode PET. In: 2016 IEEE nuclear science symposium, medical imaging conference and room-temperature semiconductor detector workshop (NSS/MIC/RTSD), Strasbourg, 2016. pp. 1–4Google Scholar
- 24.Karakatsanis NA, Robson PM, Dweck MR, Trivieri MG, Calcagno C, Mani V, et al. PET-driven respiratory phase tracking and self-gating of PET data: clinical demonstration of enhanced lesion detectability in cardiovascular PET/MRI. 2017 ieee nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); Atlanta, 2017. pp. 1–6Google Scholar
- 26.Mohy-ud-Din H, Karakatsanis NA, Goddard JS, Baba J, Wills W, Tahari AK, et al. Generalized dynamic PET inter-frame and intra-frame motion correction-Phantom and human validation studies. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC); Anaheim, 2012. pp. 3067–78.Google Scholar
- 27.Raghunath N, Faber TL, Suryanarayanan S, Votaw JR. Motion correction of PET brain images through deconvolution: II. Practical implementation and algorithm optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(3):813–29.Google Scholar
- 28.Fulton R, Tellmann L, Pietrzyk U, Winz O, Stangier I, Nickel I, et al. Accuracy of motion correction methods for pet brain imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;7:4226–300.Google Scholar