Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jul;44(7):1223-1233. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3619-2. Epub 2017 Jan 26.

Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience.

Author information

1
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Edwin.terVoert@usz.ch.
2
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Edwin.terVoert@usz.ch.
3
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
4
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
5
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
6
GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
7
GE Global Research, München, Germany.
8
GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA.
9
Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
10
Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
11
Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
12
Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Our objective was to determine clinically the value of time-of-flight (TOF) information in reducing PET artifacts and improving PET image quality and accuracy in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning.

METHODS:

A total 65 patients who underwent a comparative scan in a simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanner were included. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed, clinically examined, compared and scored. PET imaging artifacts were categorized as large or small implant-related artifacts, as dental implant-related artifacts, and as implant-unrelated artifacts. Differences in image quality, especially those related to (implant) artifacts, were assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact).

RESULTS:

A total of 87 image artifacts were found and evaluated. Four patients had large and eight patients small implant-related artifacts, 27 patients had dental implants/fillings, and 48 patients had implant-unrelated artifacts. The average score was 1.14 ± 0.82 for non-TOF PET images and 0.53 ± 0.66 for TOF images (p < 0.01) indicating that artifacts were less noticeable when TOF information was included.

CONCLUSION:

Our study indicates that PET image artifacts are significantly mitigated with integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. The impact is predominantly seen in patients with significant artifacts due to metal implants.

KEYWORDS:

Artifacts; Clinical research; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron emission tomography; Time-of-flight

PMID:
28124091
DOI:
10.1007/s00259-017-3619-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center