ToF技术在一体化PET/MR体部肿瘤诊断中的初步应用体会

doi:10.12117/jccmi.2018.07.007

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (23)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (2322 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To assess the image quality and clinical evaluation in simultaneous integrated time of flight(ToF) PET/MR. Methods: Twenty-one patients with primary tumors were analyzed, and the ability in lesion recognition and standard uptake value(SUVmax and SUVmean) and signal noise ratio(SNR) between ToF and non-ToF reconstruction method were compared. Results: With ToF and non-ToF reconstruction methods, the maximum SUV of the primary tumors(T-SUVmax) were 18.37±12.71, 17.12±12.17 respectively, and average SUV(T-SUVmean) were 10.17±6.97, 9.34±6.58. The maximum SUV of the normal tissue(N-SUVmax) were 1.71±1.07, 1.46±0.82, and average SUV(N-SUVmean) were 1.24±0.65, 1.15±0.66. The difference of the above four parameters between the two methods were statistically significant(P<0.001). T-SUVmax and T-SUVmean with ToF increased by 9%±5%, 10%±4% compared with non-ToF. The image quality was better with the ToF reconstruction methods. The SNR with ToF was significantly higher than that of non-ToF(ToF, 10.59±3.07 vs. non-ToF, 10.13±3.35, P<0.05). Conclusion: Simultaneous integrated PET/MR can be of great significance and importance with ToF reconstruction in lesion recognition and semi-qualified analysis.

Key words： Neoplasms Positron-emission tomography

Received: 11 May 2017

PACS:	Ｒ730.4
	Ｒ817.4

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors

Cite this article:

URL:

http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/10.12117/jccmi.2018.07.007 OR http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V29/I7/479

[1]Antoch G, Bockisch A. Combined PET/MRI: a new dimension in whole-body oncology imaging?[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2009, 36(1): 113-120.
[2]Bailey DL, Pichler BJ, GüCkel B, et al. Combined PET/MRI: multi-modality multi-parametric imaging is here[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2015, 17(5): 595-608.
[3]Judenhofer MS, Wehrl HF, Newport DF, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging[J]. Nat Med, 2008, 14(4): 459-465.
[4]Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schlkopf B, et al. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2009, 36 Suppl 1(1): S93.
[5]Leynes AP, Yang J, Shanbhag DD, et al. Hybrid ZTE/Dixon MR—based attenuation correction for quantitative uptake estimation of pelvic lesions in PET/MRI[J]. Med Physics, 2017, 44(3): 902-913.
[6]Minamimoto R, Levin C, Jamali M, et al. Improvements in PET image quality in time of flight(TOF) simultaneous PET/MRI[J]. Mol Imaging Biol Mib Imaging, 2016, (2): 1-6.
[7]Schlemmer HP. PET/MR imaging: current status and future direction[J]. Can Imaging, 2015, 15(S1): 1-2.
[8]Surti S. Update on time-of-flight PET imaging[J]. J Nucl Med Off Pub Soc Nucl Med, 2015, 56(1): 98-105.
[9]Surti S, Karp JS. Advances in time-of-flight PET[J]. Phy Med, 2016, 32(1): 12-22.
[10]Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, et al. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET[J]. Ejnmmi Physics, 2016, 3(1): 1-30.
[11]Oda K, Toyama H, Uemura K, et al. Comparison of parametric FBP and OS-EM reconstruction algorithm images for PET dynamic study[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2001, 15(5): 417-423.
[12]Razifar P, Lubberink M, Schneider H, et al. Non-isotropic noise correlation in PET data reconstructed by FBP but not by OSEM demonstrated using auto-correlation function[J]. BMC Med Imaging, 2005, 5(1): 1-18.
[13]Schramm G, Holler M, Rezaei A, et al. Evaluation of parallel level sets and Bowsher’s method as segmentation-free anatomical priors for time-of-flight PET reconstruction[J]. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2018, 37(2): 590-603.
[14]Ter Voert E, Vert-Haibach P, Ahn S, et al. Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2017, 44(7): 1223-1233.
[15]Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 1.0[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2010, 24(4): 325-334.
[16]Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen[J]. Radiology, 2004, 233(1): 93.
[17]Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses[J]. J Nucl Med, 2012, 53(6): 845-855.
[18]Minamimoto R, Iagaru A, Jamali M, et al. Conspicuity of malignant lesions on PET/CT and simultaneous time-of-flight PET/MRI[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(1): e0167262.
[19]Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalichi MM, et al. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system[J]. Med Phys, 2016, 43(5): 2334.
[20]Levin CS, Maramraju SH, Khalichi MM, et al. Design features and mutual compatibility studies of the time-of-flight PET capable GE SIGNA PET/MR system[J]. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2016, 35(8): 1907.
[21]Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, et al. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET[J]. EJNMMI Phys, 2016, 3(1): 3.
[22]Shang K, Cui B, Ma J, et al. Clinical evaluation of whole-body oncologic PET with time-of-flight and point-spread function for the hybrid PET/MR system[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2017, 93(8): 70-75.
[23]Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, et al. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83(1): 226-230.