Motion Correction and Its Impact on Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow Measures with PET
- 48 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Motion artifacts, due to cardiac and respiratory cycles, myocardial cardiac creep, or gross patient movements, have been extensively investigated in the context of relative myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and PET. These movements have been identified as a major source of errors in image quantification and diagnosis. Recently, as dynamic PET quantification for myocardial blood flow assessment has entered clinical practice, similar questions have arisen on the impact of motion on final blood flow values.
While preliminary investigations have underlined the potential impact of these motions on MBF quantification, their correction on dynamic acquisition remains challenging and limited to research studies. Gross patient’s body movements occur in a consistent number of cases, particularly during stress acquisition, typically involving a limited number of image frames. If undetected, these movements can lead to great differences in flow values and consequently misdiagnosis. Quality control routines can be applied to automatically inspect the shape of time activity curves and to help identify motion artifacts.
Cyclic cardiac and respiratory motion may have a considerable impact on final flow values. Correction of gross body motion represents a priority in the context of optimizing absolute flow clinical routine utilization and protocol standardization.
KeywordsCardiac PET MBF quantification Cardiac and respiratory artifacts Body motion artifacts
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Marina Piccinelli declares that she has no conflict of interest.
John R. Votaw reports personal fees from Syntermed Inc.
Ernest V. Garcia reports other from Syntermed Inc.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 5.Klein R, Renaud JM, Zaidi MC, Thorn SL, Adler A, Beanlands RS, et al. Intra- and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 pet and a highly automated analysis program. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):600–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rajaram M, Tahari AK, Lee AH, Lodge MA, Tsui B, Nekolla S, et al. Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:50–4.Google Scholar
- 35.Klein R, Hunter C, Beanlands R, deKemp RA. Prevalence of patient motion in dynamic PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(supplement 1):2015.Google Scholar
- 36.•• Hunter CRRN, Klein R, Beanlands RS, de Kemp RA. Patient motion effects on the quantification of regional myocardial blood flow with dynamic PET imaging. Med Phys. 2016;43:1829–39. Study on the assessment of motion on MBF values conducted with computer simulations and in a patients’ cohort. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Votaw JR, Packard RRS. Technical aspects of acquiring and measuring myocardial blood flow: methods, techniques, and QA. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1049-y.