Monchai Phonlakrai1, Chidchanok Chusuwon1, Pohnpan Kampipak1, Paramest Wongsa1, Phornpailin Pairodsantikul1, and Attapon Jantarato 2
1School of Radiological Technology, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand, 2National Cyclotron and PET Centre, Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
Synopsis
Motivation: PET/MRI integrate functional and anatomical information, elevating diagnostic precision. However, a key challenge lies in ensuring the reliability of attenuation (µ) map generation.
Goal(s): This research assesses the accuracy of PET/MR-based µ-map from 3D-Dixon and 3D-Dixon Hires T1W in comparison to a standard µ-map from PET/CT at the voxel level.
Approach: the µ-map data from 15 patients who underwent both PET/CT and PET/MRI of the pelvic region were analyzed to quantify the disparities in the generated µ-maps.
Results: We found that 3D-Dixon Hires outperforms the 3D-Dixon in the creation of µ-maps, rendering it a superior choice for precise attenuation correction.
Impact: Spatial resolution influences the accuracy of
attenuation correction in PET/MRI, particularly when employing quantitative
methods for diagnosis. Notably, the utilization of higher-resolution Dixon MRI
images enhances the reliability of attenuation in tissue compartmental models
for the generation of this map.
INTRODUCTION
Hybrid Positron Emission
Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) offers simultaneous molecular
functional insights and anatomical data, enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless,
the integration of attenuation correction in PET/MRI represents a formidable
challenge1. This challenge necessitates the generation of an
attenuation map (µ-map) utilizing specialized techniques. The limitations
associated with this process result in imprecise radiotracer uptake values
within tissues, underscoring the importance of verifying the accuracy of the
µ-map2. Hence, this investigation seeks to compare µ-map images
derived from PET/MR utilizing 3-dimensional-Dixon spoiled-GRE T1W sequence (3D-Dixon)
and 3-dimensional Dixon high-resolution spoiled-GRE T1W sequence (3D-Dixon Hires)
with the reference µ-map images obtained through PET/CT at the pixel level.
This is to scrutinize disparities in µ-map acquisition between these two
imaging modalities.METHODS
This retrospective study
utilized image data from 15 patients who underwent both whole-body 18F-FDG
PET/CT and whole pelvis 18F-FDG
PET/MRI on the same day. For the PET/CT , 18F-FDG PET data were
acquired following intravenous injection of 2.59 MBq/kg of 18F-FDG.
The PET/CT scan was conducted using a 64-slice Siemens/Biograph Vision Scanner,
approximately 60 minutes post-injection from the vertex to the proximal thighs
for attenuation correction and structural imaging. A 3D-emission scan of the
same region was obtained with continuous bed motion over a 10-minute duration.
The reconstruction parameters for attenuation correction included the use of
ultra-HD PET with two iterations and five subsets, an image size of 440 × 440,
all-pass filters, and a zoom factor of 1. PET data were reconstructed into
whole-body static images. CT-based µ-map was generated using bilinear
transformation.
For the PET/MRI, a
3D-Dixon sequence was acquired to produce opposed phase, in-phase, water-only,
and fat-only images in coronal plane. A acceleration factor (PAT factor) of 5
was utilized, with an acquisition time of 8.4 seconds and a field of view (FOV)
of 500 mm x 400 mm. The reconstructed voxel size was 2.6 x 2.6 x 3.12 mm. The
µ-map for PET/MRI was generated using a 5-compartment tissue model, which
included representations of air, water, lung, adaptive bone, and fat. In
addition, 3D-Dixon Hires images were acquired and reconstructed into four
different volumes as the previous sequence, in transverse plane. A PAT factor
of 5 was applied, with an acquisition time of 9.6 seconds and a FOV measuring
500 mm x 265.5 mm. The reconstructed voxel size was 1.30 x 1.30 x 2.02 mm. The
µ-map for PET/MRI was derived using the same method as the one used in
3D-DIXON.
To obtain mean absolute
error (MAE), µ-maps were analyzed using MIM software for image
rigid-registration between the CT- and MRI-based µ-maps of the pelvis. The
quality of image registration was assessed through visual inspection.
Subsequently, the registered images were used to compute voxel-based MAE and
standard deviation (SD) using ImageJ software. Histogram thresholding was
applied to MAE maps within the range of 0.01 to 50 (Figure 1 (e-f)) to exclude image
background and artifact pixels from the calculation. Finally, the average MAE
of both sequences was compared using a paired student t-test. RESULTS
Of fifteen patients,
average MAE ± SD of the μ-map derived from a standard CT and 3D-Dixon imaging
was 9.232±2.287. In contrast, the μ-maps obtained from a standard CT and
3D-Dixon Hires exhibited an average MAE ± SD of 7.435±1.359. The average MAE from
3D-Dixon hires was significantly lower than that of μ-maps generated from CT
and 3D-Dixon (p < 0.001), as illustrated in Figure 2.DISCUSSION
The µ-map derived from 3D-Dixon
Hires was more closely aligned with the µ-map derived from CT images at the
voxel level. This observation is likely attributed to the enhanced depiction of
bone structures in the 3D-Dixon Hires image volume compared to the conventional
3D-Dixon approach, which aligns with the findings of Paulus et al. (2015)3.
Their study reported that the use of model-based bone segmentation algorithm in
Dixon imaging techniques improved the accuracy of MRI-based µ-maps. Our finding
suggested that spatial resolution may result in improved reliability of
MRI-based attenuation map. Further investigation is warranted, with an emphasis
on expanding the sample size and PAT factor optimization to obtain more
comprehensive insights.CONCLUSION
3D-Dixon Hires-based
attenuation maps exhibited superior accuracy within the pelvic region at the
pixel level, as compared to the standard 3D-Dixon approach. This improvement is
evident from the substantially reduced mean absolute error and standard
deviation values. Consequently, the 3D-Dixon Hires offers a viable approach for
augmenting the precision of attenuation correction in this specific context.Acknowledgements
We would like to thank National Cyclotron and PET Centre, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, for research facility and data supports.References
REFERENCES:
1. Yankeelov TE, Peterson
TE, Abramson RG, Garcia-Izquierdo D, Arlinghaus LR, Li X. ... & Gore JC.
Simultaneous PET–MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magnetic
resonance imaging. 2012;30(9): 1342-1356.
2. Wagenknecht G, Kaiser
HJ, Mottaghy FM, & Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods
and challenges. Magnetic resonance materials in physics, biology, and
medicine.2013;26: 99-113
3. Paulus DH, Quick HH,
Geppert C, Fenchel M, Zhan Y, Hermosillo G, et al. Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging:
Quantitative Evaluation of a Novel Model-Based MR Attenuation Correction Method
Including Bone. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2015;56(7):1061–6.