Comparison of the clinical performance of upper abdominal PET/DCE-MRI with and without concurrent respiratory motion correction (MoCo)
- 98 Downloads
To compare the clinical performance of upper abdominal PET/DCE-MRI with and without concurrent respiratory motion correction (MoCo).
MoCo PET/DCE-MRI of the upper abdomen was acquired in 44 consecutive oncologic patients and compared with non-MoCo PET/MRI. SUVmax and MTV of FDG-avid upper abdominal malignant lesions were assessed on MoCo and non-MoCo PET images. Image quality was compared between MoCo DCE-MRI and non-MoCo CE-MRI, and between fused MoCo PET/MRI and fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images.
MoCo PET resulted in higher SUVmax (10.8 ± 5.45) than non-MoCo PET (9.62 ± 5.42) and lower MTV (35.55 ± 141.95 cm3) than non-MoCo PET (38.11 ± 198.14 cm3; p < 0.005 for both). The quality of MoCo DCE-MRI images (4.73 ± 0.5) was higher than that of non-MoCo CE-MRI images (4.53±0.71; p = 0.037). The quality of fused MoCo-PET/MRI images (4.96 ± 0.16) was higher than that of fused non-MoCo PET/MRI images (4.39 ± 0.66; p < 0.005).
MoCo PET/MRI provided qualitatively better images than non-MoCo PET/MRI, and upper abdominal malignant lesions demonstrated higher SUVmax and lower MTV on MoCo PET/MRI.
KeywordsRespiratory motion correction PET/MRI Abdomen Oncology
positron emission tomography
dynamic contrast enhanced
volume interpolated breath-hold examination
maximal standard uptake value
metabolic tumor volume.
We acknowledge the following individuals for their help with the PET/MRI data acquisition and initial processing (in alphabetical order): Grae Arabasz, Regan Butterfield, Shirley Hsu, Mary O’Hara, and Lawrence White. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation in donating the Tesla K40 and the Titan X Pascal GPUs used for this research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The clinical institutional review board approved this study. All procedures were performed in accordance with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of retrospective study formal consent is not required; however, patients provided written informed consent at the time of PET/MRI for possible usage of their data in subsequent research studies.
- 2.Li G, Schmidtlein CR, Burger IA, Ridge CA, Solomon SB, Humm JL. Assessing and accounting for the impact of respiratory motion on FDG uptake and viable volume for liver lesions in free-breathing PET using respiration-suspended PET images as reference. Med Phys. 2014;41:091905.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Bamrungchart S, Tantaway EM, Midia EC, Hernandes MA, Srirattanapong S, Dale BM, et al. Free breathing three-dimensional gradient echo-sequence with radial data sampling (radial 3D-GRE) examination of the pancreas: comparison with standard 3D-GRE volumetric interpolated breathhold examination (VIBE). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:1572–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kaltenbach B, Roman A, Polkowski C, Gruber-Rouh T, Bauer RW, Hammerstingl R, et al. Free-breathing dynamic liver examination using a radial 3D T1-weighted gradient echo sequence with moderate undersampling for patients with limited breath-holding capacity. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:26–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Ogawa M, Kawai T, Kan H, Kobayashi S, Akagawa Y, Suzuki K, et al. Shortened breath-hold contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver using a new parallel imaging technique, CAIPIRINHA (controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration): a comparison with conventional GRAPPA technique. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:3091–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Blackall JM, King AP, Penney GP, Adam A, Hawkes DJ. A statistical model of respiratory motion and deformation of the liver. In: Niessen WJ, Viergever MA, editors. Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention – MICCAI 2001, vol. 2208. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2001. p. 1338–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar