Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article – Annual report year: 2014Researchpeer-review

Standard

Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging. / Aznar, M.C.; Sersar, Rachida; Saabye, J.; Ladefoged, C.N.; Andersen, F.L.; Rasmussen, J.H.; Löfgren, J.; Beyer, T.

In: European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 83, No. 7, 2014, p. 1177-1183.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article – Annual report year: 2014Researchpeer-review

Harvard

Aznar, MC, Sersar, R, Saabye, J, Ladefoged, CN, Andersen, FL, Rasmussen, JH, Löfgren, J & Beyer, T 2014, 'Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging', European Journal of Radiology, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 1177-1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.03.022

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Aznar, M.C. ; Sersar, Rachida ; Saabye, J. ; Ladefoged, C.N. ; Andersen, F.L. ; Rasmussen, J.H. ; Löfgren, J. ; Beyer, T. / Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging. In: European Journal of Radiology. 2014 ; Vol. 83, No. 7. pp. 1177-1183.

Bibtex

@article{acf8450109524eda831a476d51fd4c97,
title = "Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging",
abstract = "Purpose: In combined PET/MRI standard PET attenuation correction (AC) is based on tissue segmentation following dedicated MR sequencing and, typically, bone tissue is not represented. We evaluate PET quantification in whole-body (WB)-PET/MRI following MR-AC without considering bone attenuation and then investigate different strategies to account for bone tissue in clinical PET/MR imaging. To this purpose, bone tissue representation was extracted from separate CT images, and different bone representations were simulated from hypothetically derived MR-based bone classifications. Methods: Twenty oncology patients referred for a PET/CT were injected with either [18F]-FDG or [18F]-NaF and imaged on PET/CT (Biograph TruePoint/mCT, Siemens) and PET/MRI (mMR, Siemens) following a standard single-injection, dual-imaging clinical WB-protocol. Routine MR-AC was based on in-/opposed-phase MR imaging (orgMR-AC). PET(/MRI) images were reconstructed (AW-OSEM, 3 iterations, 21 subsets, 4mm Gaussian) following routine MR-AC and MR-AC based on four modified attenuation maps. These modified attenuation maps were created for each patient by non-linear co-registration of the CT images to the orgMR-AC images, and adding CT bone mask values representing cortical bone: 1200HU (cortCT), spongiosa bone: 350HU (spongCT), average CT value (meanCT) and original CT values (orgCT). Relative difference images of the PET following AC using the modified attenuation maps were compared. SUVmean was calculated in anatomical reference regions and for PET-positive lesions. Results: The relative differences in SUVmean across patients following orgMR-AC and orgCT in soft tissue lesions and in bone lesions were similar (range: 0.0{\%} to −22.5{\%}), with an average underestimation of SUVmean of 7.2{\%} and 10.0{\%}, respectively when using orgMR-AC. In bone lesions, spongCT values were closest to orgCT (median bias of 1.3{\%}, range: –9.0{\%} to 13.5{\%}) while the overestimation of SUVmean with respect to orgCT was highest for cortCT (40.8{\%}, range: 1.5{\%} to 110.8{\%}). For soft tissue lesions the bias was highest using cortCT (13.4{\%}, range: –2.3{\%} to 17.3{\%}) and lowest for spongCT (–2.2{\%}, range: 0.0{\%} to –13.7{\%}). Conclusions: In PET/MR imaging using standard MR-AC PET uptake values in soft lesions and bone lesions are underestimated by about 10{\%}. In individual patients this bias can be as high as 22{\%}, which is significant during clinical follow-up exams. If bone segmentation is available, then assigning a fixed attenuation value of spongious bone to all bone structures appears reasonable and results in only a minor bias of 5{\%}, or less in uptake values of soft tissue and bone lesions.",
keywords = "Combined PET/MR, Attenuation correction, Bone, Quantification",
author = "M.C. Aznar and Rachida Sersar and J. Saabye and C.N. Ladefoged and F.L. Andersen and J.H. Rasmussen and J. L{\"o}fgren and T. Beyer",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.03.022",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "1177--1183",
journal = "European Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0720-048X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Whole-body PET/MRI: The effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging

AU - Aznar, M.C.

AU - Sersar, Rachida

AU - Saabye, J.

AU - Ladefoged, C.N.

AU - Andersen, F.L.

AU - Rasmussen, J.H.

AU - Löfgren, J.

AU - Beyer, T.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose: In combined PET/MRI standard PET attenuation correction (AC) is based on tissue segmentation following dedicated MR sequencing and, typically, bone tissue is not represented. We evaluate PET quantification in whole-body (WB)-PET/MRI following MR-AC without considering bone attenuation and then investigate different strategies to account for bone tissue in clinical PET/MR imaging. To this purpose, bone tissue representation was extracted from separate CT images, and different bone representations were simulated from hypothetically derived MR-based bone classifications. Methods: Twenty oncology patients referred for a PET/CT were injected with either [18F]-FDG or [18F]-NaF and imaged on PET/CT (Biograph TruePoint/mCT, Siemens) and PET/MRI (mMR, Siemens) following a standard single-injection, dual-imaging clinical WB-protocol. Routine MR-AC was based on in-/opposed-phase MR imaging (orgMR-AC). PET(/MRI) images were reconstructed (AW-OSEM, 3 iterations, 21 subsets, 4mm Gaussian) following routine MR-AC and MR-AC based on four modified attenuation maps. These modified attenuation maps were created for each patient by non-linear co-registration of the CT images to the orgMR-AC images, and adding CT bone mask values representing cortical bone: 1200HU (cortCT), spongiosa bone: 350HU (spongCT), average CT value (meanCT) and original CT values (orgCT). Relative difference images of the PET following AC using the modified attenuation maps were compared. SUVmean was calculated in anatomical reference regions and for PET-positive lesions. Results: The relative differences in SUVmean across patients following orgMR-AC and orgCT in soft tissue lesions and in bone lesions were similar (range: 0.0% to −22.5%), with an average underestimation of SUVmean of 7.2% and 10.0%, respectively when using orgMR-AC. In bone lesions, spongCT values were closest to orgCT (median bias of 1.3%, range: –9.0% to 13.5%) while the overestimation of SUVmean with respect to orgCT was highest for cortCT (40.8%, range: 1.5% to 110.8%). For soft tissue lesions the bias was highest using cortCT (13.4%, range: –2.3% to 17.3%) and lowest for spongCT (–2.2%, range: 0.0% to –13.7%). Conclusions: In PET/MR imaging using standard MR-AC PET uptake values in soft lesions and bone lesions are underestimated by about 10%. In individual patients this bias can be as high as 22%, which is significant during clinical follow-up exams. If bone segmentation is available, then assigning a fixed attenuation value of spongious bone to all bone structures appears reasonable and results in only a minor bias of 5%, or less in uptake values of soft tissue and bone lesions.

AB - Purpose: In combined PET/MRI standard PET attenuation correction (AC) is based on tissue segmentation following dedicated MR sequencing and, typically, bone tissue is not represented. We evaluate PET quantification in whole-body (WB)-PET/MRI following MR-AC without considering bone attenuation and then investigate different strategies to account for bone tissue in clinical PET/MR imaging. To this purpose, bone tissue representation was extracted from separate CT images, and different bone representations were simulated from hypothetically derived MR-based bone classifications. Methods: Twenty oncology patients referred for a PET/CT were injected with either [18F]-FDG or [18F]-NaF and imaged on PET/CT (Biograph TruePoint/mCT, Siemens) and PET/MRI (mMR, Siemens) following a standard single-injection, dual-imaging clinical WB-protocol. Routine MR-AC was based on in-/opposed-phase MR imaging (orgMR-AC). PET(/MRI) images were reconstructed (AW-OSEM, 3 iterations, 21 subsets, 4mm Gaussian) following routine MR-AC and MR-AC based on four modified attenuation maps. These modified attenuation maps were created for each patient by non-linear co-registration of the CT images to the orgMR-AC images, and adding CT bone mask values representing cortical bone: 1200HU (cortCT), spongiosa bone: 350HU (spongCT), average CT value (meanCT) and original CT values (orgCT). Relative difference images of the PET following AC using the modified attenuation maps were compared. SUVmean was calculated in anatomical reference regions and for PET-positive lesions. Results: The relative differences in SUVmean across patients following orgMR-AC and orgCT in soft tissue lesions and in bone lesions were similar (range: 0.0% to −22.5%), with an average underestimation of SUVmean of 7.2% and 10.0%, respectively when using orgMR-AC. In bone lesions, spongCT values were closest to orgCT (median bias of 1.3%, range: –9.0% to 13.5%) while the overestimation of SUVmean with respect to orgCT was highest for cortCT (40.8%, range: 1.5% to 110.8%). For soft tissue lesions the bias was highest using cortCT (13.4%, range: –2.3% to 17.3%) and lowest for spongCT (–2.2%, range: 0.0% to –13.7%). Conclusions: In PET/MR imaging using standard MR-AC PET uptake values in soft lesions and bone lesions are underestimated by about 10%. In individual patients this bias can be as high as 22%, which is significant during clinical follow-up exams. If bone segmentation is available, then assigning a fixed attenuation value of spongious bone to all bone structures appears reasonable and results in only a minor bias of 5%, or less in uptake values of soft tissue and bone lesions.

KW - Combined PET/MR

KW - Attenuation correction

KW - Bone

KW - Quantification

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.03.022

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.03.022

M3 - Journal article

VL - 83

SP - 1177

EP - 1183

JO - European Journal of Radiology

JF - European Journal of Radiology

SN - 0720-048X

IS - 7

ER -