Standard MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI phantoms: a novel concept using MRI-visible polymer.
MR visible polymer
PET/MRI
Phantom attenuation correction
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2021
18 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
08
02
2021
entrez:
18
2
2021
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
19
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
PET/MRI phantom studies are challenged by the need of phantom-specific attenuation templates to account for attenuation properties of the phantom material. We present a PET/MRI phantom built from MRI-visible material for which attenuation correction (AC) can be performed using the standard MRI-based AC. A water-fillable phantom was 3D-printed with a commercially available MRI-visible polymer. The phantom had a cylindrical shape and the fillable compartment consisted of a homogeneous region and a region containing solid rods of different diameters. The phantom was filled with a solution of water and [18F]FDG. A 30 min PET/MRI acquisition including the standard Dixon-based MR-AC method was performed. In addition, a CT scan of the phantom was acquired on a PET/CT system. From the Dixon in-phase, opposed-phase and fat images, a phantom-specific AC map (Phantom MR-AC) was produced by separating the phantom material from the water compartment using a thresholding-based method and assigning fixed attenuation coefficients to the individual compartments. The PET data was reconstructed using the Phantom MR-AC, the original Dixon MR-AC, and an MR-AC just containing the water compartment (NoWall-AC) to estimate the error of ignoring the phantom walls. CT-based AC was employed as the reference standard. Average %-differences in measured activity between the CT corrected PET and the PET corrected with the other AC methods were calculated. The phantom housing and the liquid compartment were both visible and distinguishable from each other in the Dixon images and allowed the segmentation of a phantom-specific MR-based AC. Compared to the CT-AC PET, average differences in measured activity in the whole water compartment in the phantom of -0.3%, 9.4%, and -24.1% were found for Dixon phantom MR-AC, MR-AC, and NoWall-AC based PET, respectively. Average differences near the phantom wall in the homogeneous region were -0.3%, 6.6%, and -34.3%, respectively. Around the rods, activity differed from the CT-AC PET by 0.7%, 8.9%, and -45.5%, respectively. The presented phantom material is visible using standard MR sequences, and thus, supports the use of standard, phantom-independent MR measurements for MR-AC in PET/MRI phantom studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
PET/MRI phantom studies are challenged by the need of phantom-specific attenuation templates to account for attenuation properties of the phantom material. We present a PET/MRI phantom built from MRI-visible material for which attenuation correction (AC) can be performed using the standard MRI-based AC.
METHODS
METHODS
A water-fillable phantom was 3D-printed with a commercially available MRI-visible polymer. The phantom had a cylindrical shape and the fillable compartment consisted of a homogeneous region and a region containing solid rods of different diameters. The phantom was filled with a solution of water and [18F]FDG. A 30 min PET/MRI acquisition including the standard Dixon-based MR-AC method was performed. In addition, a CT scan of the phantom was acquired on a PET/CT system. From the Dixon in-phase, opposed-phase and fat images, a phantom-specific AC map (Phantom MR-AC) was produced by separating the phantom material from the water compartment using a thresholding-based method and assigning fixed attenuation coefficients to the individual compartments. The PET data was reconstructed using the Phantom MR-AC, the original Dixon MR-AC, and an MR-AC just containing the water compartment (NoWall-AC) to estimate the error of ignoring the phantom walls. CT-based AC was employed as the reference standard. Average %-differences in measured activity between the CT corrected PET and the PET corrected with the other AC methods were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The phantom housing and the liquid compartment were both visible and distinguishable from each other in the Dixon images and allowed the segmentation of a phantom-specific MR-based AC. Compared to the CT-AC PET, average differences in measured activity in the whole water compartment in the phantom of -0.3%, 9.4%, and -24.1% were found for Dixon phantom MR-AC, MR-AC, and NoWall-AC based PET, respectively. Average differences near the phantom wall in the homogeneous region were -0.3%, 6.6%, and -34.3%, respectively. Around the rods, activity differed from the CT-AC PET by 0.7%, 8.9%, and -45.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The presented phantom material is visible using standard MR sequences, and thus, supports the use of standard, phantom-independent MR measurements for MR-AC in PET/MRI phantom studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33599876
doi: 10.1186/s40658-021-00364-9
pii: 10.1186/s40658-021-00364-9
pmc: PMC7892652
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
18Subventions
Organisme : H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
ID : No. 764458
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund
ID : I3451-N32
Organisme : Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft
ID : 858060
Références
Med Phys. 2020 Apr;47(4):2023-2037
pubmed: 31981214
Med Phys. 2018 Feb;45(2):758-766
pubmed: 29237232
PET Clin. 2016 Apr;11(2):129-49
pubmed: 26952727
EJNMMI Phys. 2014 Dec;1(1):101
pubmed: 26501459
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jan;91(1081):20160363
pubmed: 27376170
J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):520-6
pubmed: 19289430
MAGMA. 2016 Feb;29(1):75-87
pubmed: 26739263
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 May;38(5):920-9
pubmed: 21308373
Magn Reson Med. 1990 Nov;16(2):192-225
pubmed: 2266841
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec;4(1):12
pubmed: 28251575
J Nucl Med Technol. 2014 Jun;42(2):93-100
pubmed: 24556458
Med Phys. 2006 Apr;33(4):976-83
pubmed: 16696474
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jan;31(1):4-18
pubmed: 20027567
Mol Imaging Biol. 2018 Feb;20(1):4-20
pubmed: 28971346
Neuroimage. 2017 Feb 15;147:346-359
pubmed: 27988322
Med Phys. 2015 Oct;42(10):5961-9
pubmed: 26429271
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Oct;70(4):1047-57
pubmed: 23203976
Med Phys. 2018 Feb;45(2):773-782
pubmed: 29178486
EJNMMI Res. 2016 Dec;6(1):20
pubmed: 26936769
Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4306-15
pubmed: 22830764
Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2019 Oct - Dec;114-115:237-270
pubmed: 31779882
Med Phys. 1990 Mar-Apr;17(2):287-95
pubmed: 2333055
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Mar 29;64(7):075010
pubmed: 30818301
Med Phys. 2011 May;38(5):2795-805
pubmed: 21776816
PLoS One. 2017 May 31;12(5):e0177856
pubmed: 28562622
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Mar;57(3):577-86
pubmed: 17326185
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jul;57(7):1096-101
pubmed: 26917707
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Aug 5;7(1):52
pubmed: 32757099
MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):99-113
pubmed: 23179594
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Sep;54(3):636-44
pubmed: 16092103
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Feb;77(2):613-622
pubmed: 26864335
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1519-1525
pubmed: 28254872
Invest Radiol. 2016 Oct;51(10):624-34
pubmed: 27175550
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Sep;94:A3-A13
pubmed: 28431784
EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):11
pubmed: 27387738
J Nucl Med. 2013 Aug;54(8):1464-71
pubmed: 23792278