PET/CT-guided biopsy with respiratory motion correction

  • Ruoqiao Zhang
  • Dženan Zukić
  • Darrin W. Byrd
  • Andinet Enquobahrie
  • Adam M. Alessio
  • Kevin Cleary
  • Filip Banovac
  • Paul E. KinahanEmail author
Original Article



Given the ability of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to localize malignancies in heterogeneous tumors and tumors that lack an X-ray computed tomography (CT) correlate, combined PET/CT-guided biopsy may improve the diagnostic yield of biopsies. However, PET and CT images are naturally susceptible to problems due to respiratory motion, leading to imprecise tumor localization and shape distortion. To facilitate PET/CT-guided needle biopsy, we developed and investigated the feasibility of a workflow that allows to bring PET image guidance into interventional CT suite while accounting for respiratory motion.


The performance of PET/CT respiratory motion correction using registered and summed phases method was evaluated through computer simulations using the mathematical 4D extended cardiac-torso phantom, with motion simulated from real respiratory traces. The performance of PET/CT-guided biopsy procedure was evaluated through operation on a physical anthropomorphic phantom. Vials containing radiolabeled 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose were placed within the physical phantom thorax as biopsy targets. We measured the average distance between target center and the simulated biopsy location among multiple trials to evaluate the biopsy localization accuracy.


The computer simulation results showed that the RASP method generated PET images with a significantly reduced noise of 0.10 ± 0.01 standardized uptake value (SUV) as compared to an end-of-expiration image noise of 0.34 ± 0.04 SUV. The respiratory motion increased the apparent liver lesion size from 5.4 ± 1.1 to 35.3 ± 3.0 cc. The RASP algorithm reduced this to 15.7 ± 3.7 cc. The distances between the centroids for the static image lesion and two moving lesions in the liver and lung, when reconstructed with the RASP algorithm, were 0.83 ± 0.72 mm and 0.42 ± 0.72 mm. For the ungated imaging, these values increased to 3.48 ± 1.45 mm and 2.5 ± 0.12 mm, respectively. For the ungated imaging, this increased to 1.99 ± 1.72 mm. In addition, the lesion activity estimation (e.g., SUV) was accurate and constant for images reconstructed using the RASP algorithm, whereas large activity bias and variations (± 50%) were observed for lesions in the ungated images. The physical phantom studies demonstrated a biopsy needle localization error of 2.9 ± 0.9 mm from CT. Combined with the localization errors due to respiration for the PET images from simulations, the overall estimated lesion localization error would be 3.08 mm for PET-guided biopsies images using RASP and 3.64 mm when using ungated PET images. In other words, RASP reduced the localization error by approximately 0.6 mm. The combined error analysis showed that replacing the standard end-of-expiration images with the proposed RASP method in PET/CT-guided biopsy workflow yields comparable lesion localization accuracy and reduced image noise.


The RASP method can produce PET images with reduced noise, attenuation artifacts and respiratory motion, resulting in more accurate lesion localization. Testing the PET/CT-guided biopsy workflow using computer simulation and physical phantoms with respiratory motion, we demonstrated that guided biopsy procedure with the RASP method can benefit from improved PET image quality due to noise reduction, without compromising the accuracy of lesion localization.


PET/CT-guided biopsy Respiratory motion correction Image registration 



This work was supported in part by the National Institute of Health (NIH) Grants R42 CA153488, R01 CA160253 and R42 CA167907.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, Altman H, Keidar Z, Israel O (2003) Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 44(8):1200–1209Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, Stine SH, Coleman RE (2008) Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the national oncologic PET registry. J Clin Oncol 26(13):2155–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farwell MD, Pryma DA, Mankoff DA (2014) PET/CT imaging in cancer: current applications and future directions. Cancer 120(22):3433–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348(25):2500–2507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Bryant AS, Raghuveer V, Mountz JM, Bartolucci AA (2004) The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 78(3):1017–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF (2006) Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology 238(2):405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metser U, Miller E, Lerman H, Even-Sapir E (2007) Benign nonphysiologic lesions with increased 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT: characterization and incidence. Am J Roentgenol 189(5):1203–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhuang H, Alavi A (2002) 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic imaging in the detection and monitoring of infection and inflammation. Semin Nucl Med 32(1):47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Tuncali K, Shyn PB, Silverman SG (2010) Abdominal masses sampled at PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy: initial experience with registration of prior PET/CT images. Radiology 256(1):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Sullivan PJ, Rohren EM, Madewell JE (2008) Positron emission tomography–CT imaging in guiding musculoskeletal biopsy. Radiol Clin 46(3):475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mallarajapatna GJ, Kallur KG, Ramanna NK, Susheela SP, Ramachandra PG (2009) PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of isolated intramuscular metastases from postcricoid cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 37(4):220–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Govindarajan MJ, Nagaraj KR, Kallur KG, Sridhar PS (2009) PET/CT guidance for percutaneous fine needle aspiration cytology/biopsy. Indian J Radiol 19(3):208–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Marshall LT, Wahl RL (2003) PET-CT: accuracy of PET and CT spatial registration of lung lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(5):721–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goerres GW, Burger C, Schwitter MR, Heidelberg TN, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK (2003) PET/CT of the abdomen: optimizing the patient breathing pattern. Eur Radiol 13(4):734–739Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beyer T, Rosenbaum S, Veit P, Stattaus J, Müller SP, DiFilippo FP, Schöder H, Mawlawi O, Roberts F, Bockisch A, Kühl H (2005) Respiration artifacts in whole-body 18 F-FDG PET/CT studies with combined PET/CT tomographs employing spiral CT technology with 1 to 16 detector rows. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32(12):1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J, Phelps M, Czernin J (2006) Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 47(2):298–301Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu C, Pierce LA, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE (2009) Impact of respiratory motion on tumor quantification and delineation in static PET/CT imaging. Phys Med Biol 54(24):7345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinahan P, MacDonald L, Ng L, Alessio A, Segars P, Tsui B, Pathak S (2006) Compensating for patient respiration in PET/CT imaging with the registered and summed phases (RASP) procedure. In: 3rd IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: nano to macro, pp 1104–1107Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khare R, Sala G, Kinahan P, Esposito G, Banovac F, Cleary K, Enquobahrie A (2013) Experimental evaluation of a deformable registration algorithm for motion correction in PET-CT guided biopsy. In: Nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson H, Harris G, Williams K (2007) BRAINSFit: mutual information registrations of whole-brain 3D images, using the insight toolkit. Insight J.
  21. 21.
    Yaniv Z, Wilson E, Lindisch D, Cleary K (2009) Electromagnetic tracking in the clinical environment. Med Phys 36(3):876–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30(9):1323–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    PET-CT project wiki page. Accessed on 8 Jan 2015
  24. 24.
    Zukić D, Finet J, Wilson E, Banovac F, Esposito G, Cleary K, Enquobahrie A (2015) SlicerPET: a workflow based software module for PET/CT guided needle biopsy. Comput Aided Radiol Surg 10:S186–S187. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Enquobahrie A, Gobbi D, Turek MW, Cheng P, Yaniv Z, Lindseth F, Cleary K (2008) Designing tracking software for image-guided surgery applications: IGSTK experience. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 3(5):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Segars WP, Tsui BM (2009) MCAT to XCAT: the evolution of 4-D computerized phantoms for imaging research. Proc IEEE 97(12):1954–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang R, Alessio AM, Pierce LA, Byrd DW, Lee TC, De Man B, Kinahan PE (2017) Improved attenuation correction for respiratory gated PET/CT with extended-duration cine CT: a simulation study. In: Medical imaging 2017: Physics of medical imaging 10132:101321IGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin R, Wilson E, Tang J, Stoianovici D, Cleary K (2007) A computer-controlled pump and realistic anthropomorphic respiratory phantom for validating image-guided systems. In: Proceedings of the SPIE medical imaging conference 2007: visualization and image-guided procedures, vol 6509, p 65090E1-9Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yaniv Z, Cheng P, Wilson E, Popa T, Lindisch D, Campos-Nanez E, Abeledo H, Watson V, Cleary K, Banovac F (2010) Needle-based interventions with the image-guided surgery toolkit (IGSTK): from phantoms to clinical trials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57(4):922–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Tuncali K, Shyn PB, Silverman SG (2010) Abdominal masses sampled at PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy: initial experience with registration of prior PET/CT images. Radiology 256(1):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Venkatesan AM, Kadoury S, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Levy EB, Maass-Moreno R, Krücker J, Dalal S, Xu S, Glossop N, Wood BJ (2011) Real-time FDG PET guidance during biopsies and radiofrequency ablation using multimodality fusion with electromagnetic navigation. Radiology 260(3):848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chang G, Chang T, Pan T, Clark JW, Mawlawi OR (2010) Implementation of an automated respiratory amplitude gating technique for PET/CT: clinical evaluation. J Nucl Med 51(1):16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Kitware Inc.CarrboroUSA
  3. 3.Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical InnovationChildren’s National Health SystemWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  5. 5.Canon Medical Research USA, Inc.Vernon HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations