René Michael Botnar1
1Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Synopsis
Cardiac PET/MR promises to combine multi-contrast
and multi-parametric cardiac MRI that provides information on anatomy, left
ventricular function, myocardial tissue viability, perfusion and oxygenation as
well as fibrosis (T1), inflammation (T2) and iron (T2*) with the high sensitivity
of PET for radiotracer detection, Thus, it promises to enable simultaneous
assessment of molecular and cellular processes related to cardiovascular diseases
such as atherosclerosis, post infarct remodelling, cardiomyopathy or heart failure.
In this talk we will discuss both the promises but also the challenges related
to cardiac PET/MR and show first results from clinical studies.
Abstract
Cardiac PET/MR is
a relatively new imaging technique that promises to combine multi-contrast and
multi-parametric cardiac MRI that provides information on heart anatomy, left ventricular
function, myocardial viability, perfusion, oxygenation, fibrosis (T1), inflammation
(T2) and iron content (T2*) with the high sensitivity of PET for radiotracer
detection1. Thus, it promises to enable simultaneous assessment of
molecular and cellular processes related to cardiovascular diseases such as
atherosclerosis, post infarct remodelling, cardiomyopathy or heart failure. Current
clinical interest in cardiac PET/MR has mainly focused on the diagnosis of patients
with sarcoidosis2, aortic calcification3, amyloidosis4
and coronary artery disease by exploiting several radiotracers including 18F-FDG
(glucose metabolism), 18F-NaF (microcalcification), 68Ga-DOTATATE (inflammation),
18F-flutemetamol (amyloid). Among those cardiovascular diseases, sarcoidosis is
considered an ideal application for PET/MR, as it benefits from the simultaneous
assessment of myocardial inflammation with 18F-FDG and T2 mapping in concert with
late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) for scar detection. Other applications include
detection of amyloidosis with 18F-flutemetamol PET in concert with MR-based native
T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification or assessment of high-risk
coronary plaque with 18F-NaF PET and coronary MR angiography.
Most cardiac
PET/MR exams however do not take full advantage of the simultaneous data acquisition
and typically perform 2D cardiac MR scans in several standardized views (long
axis, short axis, 2, 3 and 4 chamber view) during multiple breathholds while
the PET acquisition is performed in 3D during free-breathing, which can lead to
mis-registration artefacts between the MR and PET emission and attenuation
correction data, even though they are simultaneously acquired, potentially leading
to e.g. PET quantification errors or image artefacts. In the last 3-5 years
attempts have been made to obtain motion information from MRI, either by using calibration
scans in concert with motion surrogates such as bellows5 or by
performing fully diagnostic MRI scans in concert with self-navigation or image-navigation
techniques that allow to motion correct both the free-breathing 3D MRI and 3D
PET emission and attenuation data and thus improve image quality and
quantification of radiotracer uptake6. In this presentation, we will
discuss the latest technical developments in PET-MR and review clinical studies
with different radiotracers. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the following grants:
(1) EPSRC EP/P032311/1, EP/P001009/1 and EP/P007619/1, (2) BHF programme grant
RG/20/1/34802, (3) King’s BHF Centre for Research Excellence RE/18/2/34213 (4)
Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering (NS/A000049/1), and (5) the
Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Cardiovascular Health Technology Cooperative (HTC) and comprehensive Biomedical
Research Centre awarded to Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in
partnership with King’s College London and King’s College Hospital NHS
Foundation Trust. References
1) Nazir S et al. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc
Imaging (2018). 19:9;962-974
2) Wicks E et al. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc
Imaging (2018). 19:7; 757-767
3) Andrews JPM et al. Journal of Nuclear
Cardiology (2019). doi:10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y
4) Baratto S et al. EJNMMI Res (2018). 8:1;
66
5) Kuestner T et al. Med Image Anal (2017). 42;
129-144
6) Munoz C et al. Magn Reson Med (2018). 79:1;
339-350