4.7 Article

Clinical Evaluation of a Data-Driven Respiratory Gating Algorithm for Whole-Body PET with Continuous Bed Motion

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 61, Issue 10, Pages 1520-1527

Publisher

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.235770

Keywords

PET; PET/CT; respiratory motion; gating; motion correction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Respiratory gating is the standard to prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET. Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data is a promising alternative to gating approaches requiring additional hardware (e.g., pressuresensitive belt gating [BG]). However, continuous-bed-motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially extended PET, compared with DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort and compared with BG using optimally gated (OG) and fully motion-corrected (elastic motion correction [EMOCO]) reconstructions. Methods: Fifty-six patients with suspected malignancies in the thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body F-18-FDG CBM PET/CT using DDG and BG. Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, OG and EMOCO reconstructions were used for BG and DDG. The metabolic volume, SUVmax, and SUVmean of lesions were compared among the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in the different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by 3 experts. Results: The global correlation coefficient between BG and DDG signals was 0.48 +/- 0.11, peaking at 0.89 +/- 0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO, and DDG-EMOCO than in static images (P < 0.001; median SUVmax: static, 14.3 +/- 13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8 +/- 15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5 +/- 15.6; BG-OG, 19.6 +/- 17.1; and DDGOG, 18.9 +/- 16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG or between BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions (P < 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and DDG for either EMOCO or OG reconstruction. Conclusion: DDG-based motion compensation of CBM PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to BG approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM PET systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available