We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions.
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011 September
PURPOSE: In this study, the potential contribution of Dixon-based MR imaging with a rapid low-resolution breath-hold sequence, which is a technique used for MR-based attenuation correction (AC) for MR/positron emission tomography (PET), was evaluated for anatomical correlation of PET-positive lesions on a 3T clinical scanner compared to low-dose CT. This technique is also used in a recently installed fully integrated whole-body MR/PET system.
METHODS: Thirty-five patients routinely scheduled for oncological staging underwent (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and a 2-point Dixon 3-D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) T1-weighted MR sequence on the same day. Two PET data sets reconstructed using attenuation maps from low-dose CT (PET(AC_CT)) or simulated MR-based segmentation (PET(AC_MR)) were evaluated for focal PET-positive lesions. The certainty for the correlation with anatomical structures was judged in the low-dose CT and Dixon-based MRI on a 4-point scale (0-3). In addition, the standardized uptake values (SUVs) for PET(AC_CT) and PET(AC_MR) were compared.
RESULTS: Statistically, no significant difference could be found concerning anatomical localization for all 81 PET-positive lesions in low-dose CT compared to Dixon-based MR (mean 2.51 ± 0.85 and 2.37 ± 0.87, respectively; p = 0.1909). CT tended to be superior for small lymph nodes, bone metastases and pulmonary nodules, while Dixon-based MR proved advantageous for soft tissue pathologies like head/neck tumours and liver metastases. For the PET(AC_CT)- and PET(AC_MR)-based SUVs (mean 6.36 ± 4.47 and 6.31 ± 4.52, respectively) a nearly complete concordance with a highly significant correlation was found (r = 0.9975, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Dixon-based MR imaging for MR AC allows for anatomical allocation of PET-positive lesions similar to low-dose CT in conventional PET/CT. Thus, this approach appears to be useful for future MR/PET for body regions not fully covered by diagnostic MRI due to potential time constraints.
METHODS: Thirty-five patients routinely scheduled for oncological staging underwent (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and a 2-point Dixon 3-D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) T1-weighted MR sequence on the same day. Two PET data sets reconstructed using attenuation maps from low-dose CT (PET(AC_CT)) or simulated MR-based segmentation (PET(AC_MR)) were evaluated for focal PET-positive lesions. The certainty for the correlation with anatomical structures was judged in the low-dose CT and Dixon-based MRI on a 4-point scale (0-3). In addition, the standardized uptake values (SUVs) for PET(AC_CT) and PET(AC_MR) were compared.
RESULTS: Statistically, no significant difference could be found concerning anatomical localization for all 81 PET-positive lesions in low-dose CT compared to Dixon-based MR (mean 2.51 ± 0.85 and 2.37 ± 0.87, respectively; p = 0.1909). CT tended to be superior for small lymph nodes, bone metastases and pulmonary nodules, while Dixon-based MR proved advantageous for soft tissue pathologies like head/neck tumours and liver metastases. For the PET(AC_CT)- and PET(AC_MR)-based SUVs (mean 6.36 ± 4.47 and 6.31 ± 4.52, respectively) a nearly complete concordance with a highly significant correlation was found (r = 0.9975, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Dixon-based MR imaging for MR AC allows for anatomical allocation of PET-positive lesions similar to low-dose CT in conventional PET/CT. Thus, this approach appears to be useful for future MR/PET for body regions not fully covered by diagnostic MRI due to potential time constraints.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app