Comparison of two elastic motion correction approaches for whole-body PET/CT: motion deblurring vs gate-to-gate motion correction

两种全身PET/CT弹性运动校正方法的比较:运动去模糊与门间运动校正

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Respiratory motion in PET/CT leads to well-known image degrading effects commonly compensated using elastic motion correction approaches. Gate-to-gate motion correction techniques are promising tools for improving clinical PET data but suffer from relatively long reconstruction times. In this study, the performance of a fast elastic motion compensation approach based on motion deblurring (DEB-MC) was evaluated on patient and phantom data and compared to an EM-based fully 3D gate-to-gate motion correction method (G2G-MC) which was considered the gold standard. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this study with suspected or confirmed malignancies in the thorax or abdomen. All patients underwent whole-body [(18)F]FDG PET/CT examinations applying hardware-based respiratory gating. In addition, a dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom was studied with PET/CT simulating tumour motion under controlled but realistic conditions. PET signal recovery values were calculated from phantom scans by comparing lesion activities after motion correction to static ground truth data. Differences in standardized uptake values (SUV) and metabolic volume (MV) between both reconstruction methods as well as between motion-corrected (MC) and non motion-corrected (NOMC) results were statistically analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Phantom data analysis showed high lesion recovery values of 91% (2 cm motion) and 98% (1 cm) for G2G-MC and 83% (2 cm) and 90% (1 cm) for DEB-MC. The statistical analysis of patient data found significant differences between NOMC and MC reconstructions for SUV (max), SUV (mean), MV, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for both reconstruction algorithms. Furthermore, both methods showed similar increases of 11-12% in SUV (max) and SUV (mean) after MC. The statistical analysis of the MC/NOMC ratio found no significant differences between the methods. CONCLUSION: Both motion correction techniques deliver comparable improvements of SUV (max), SUV (mean), and CNR after MC on clinical and phantom data. The fast elastic motion compensation technique DEB-MC may thereby be a valuable alternative to state-of-the art motion correction techniques.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。