4.2 Article

Detection and correction of patient motion in dynamic O-15-water PET MPI

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-023-03358-5

Keywords

PET; myocardial blood flow; image analysis; perfusion agents

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the ability of image readers to detect and correct patient motion in cardiac 15O-water PET imaging. The results showed that frame-by-frame motion correction can reduce motion artifacts and the impact of motion correction on clinical patient exams is limited.
Background. Patient motion constitutes a limitation to 15O-water cardiac PET imaging. We examined the ability of image readers to detect and correct patient motion using simulated motion data and clinical patient scans.Methods. Simulated data consisting of 16 motions applied to 10 motion-free scans were motion corrected using two approaches, pre-analysis and post-analysis for motion identification. Both approaches employed a manual frame-by-frame correction method. In addition, a clinical cohort was analyzed for assessment of prevalence and effect of motion and motion correction.Results. Motion correction was performed on 94% (pre-analysis) and 64% (post-analysis) of the scans. Large motion artifacts were corrected in 91% (pre-analysis) and 74% (post-analysis) of scans. Artifacts in MBF were reduced in 56% (pre-analysis) and 58% (post-analysis) of the scans. The prevalence of motion in the clinical patient cohort (n = 762) was 10%. Motion correction altered exam interpretation in only 10 (1.3%) clinical patient exams.Conclusion. Frame-by-frame motion correction after visual inspection is useful in reducing motion artifacts in cardiac 15O-water PET. Reviewing the initial results (parametric images and polar maps) as part of the motion correction process, reduced erroneous corrections in motion-free scans. In a large clinical cohort, the impact of motion correction was limited to few patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available