CT와 $^{68}Ge$ 감쇠보정 $^{18}F-FDG$ PET 영상의 정량적 비교: 측정감쇠보정대 분할감쇠보정

Quantitative Comparisons between CT and $^{68}Ge$ Transmission Attenuation Corrected $^{18}F-FDG$ PET Images: Measured Attenuation Correction vs. Segmented Attenuation Correction

  • 최준영 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 우상근 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 최용 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 최연성 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 이경한 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 김병태 (성균관의대 삼성서울병원 핵의학과)
  • Choi, Joon-Young (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Woo, Sang-Keun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Yong (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choe, Yearn-Seong (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Han (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Byung-Tae (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 발행 : 2007.02.28

초록

목적: CT를 사용한 측정감쇠보정(measured attenuation correction; CT-MAC) PET 영상은 $^{68}Ge$을 사용한 분할감쇠보정(segmented attenuation correction; Ge-SAC) PET 영상보다 섭취값이 높은 것으로 알려져 있다. 이 연구에서는 정상인과 암으로 진단된 또는 암이 의심되는 환자를 대상으로 $^{18}F-FDG$ PET을 시행하고, 감쇠보정방법을 달리하여 각각 4가지 PET 영상을 얻고 이를 서로 정량적으로 비교하였다. 대상 및 방법: 5명의 정상인(남:여=4:1; 평균나이, $29.4{\pm}2.5$세)과 35명의 환자(남17, 여18; 평균나이 $52.7{\pm}15.2$세)를 대상으로 $^{18}F-FDG$ PET을 시행하였다. 먼저, CT 영상(140 KeV, 80 mAs)을 얻은 뒤 방출영상(5 min/bed)과 $^{68}Ge$ 투과영상(3 min/bed)을 차례로 얻었다. Ordered subsets expectation maximization (28 subsets, 2 iterations) 영상재구성법과 CT-MAC, CT-SAC, Ge-MAC, Ge-SAC의 4가지 감쇠보정방법을 사용하여 4가지 PET 영상을 얻었다. 정상인군에서는 대표적인 정상조직의, 환자군에서는 비정상적인 섭취를 보이는 병소의 SUV를 구하고, 이를 서로 비교 하였다. 결과: 정상인 군에서 CT-MAC 사용하여 감쇠보정한 PET 영상의 18개 정상조직의 SUV는 나머지 3가지 종류의 PET 영상에 비하여 모두 유의하게 높았다($3.1%{\sim}4.1%$; p<0.001). 환자군에서는 총 145개 병소의 국소 FDG 섭취증가 병변이 발견되었다. CT-MAC 사용한 PET 영상의 SUV 값은 나머지 3가지 PET 영상에 비하여 모두 유의하게 높았다($2.4%{\sim}5.1%$; p<0.001). Ge-MAC 사용한 PET 영상의 SUV 값은 CT-SAC와 Ge-SAC 사용한 PET 영상에 비하여 유의하게 높았다(p<0.001). 그러나, CT-SAC와 Ge-SAC PET 영상사이의 SUV에는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 폐병변에서는 감쇠보정방법사이에 섭취값이 유의한 차이가 없는 반면, 뼈병변에서는 이러한 차이가 가장 컸다($3.8%{\sim}9.6%$; p<0.01). 결론: $^{18}F-FDG$ PET 영상에서 섭취값은 CT-MAC로 감쇠보정을 했을 때에 가장 높다. CT 감쇠보정 및 MAC 사용, 2가지 모두가 이 차이에 기여했을 것이며, 이 중 MAC 사용이 더 크게 작용한 것으로 보인다. 감쇠보정방법이 다른 PET 영상들사이의 섭취값을 비교할 때는 이러한 차이를 고려해야 할 것이다.

Purpose: It was reported that CT-based measured attenuation correction (CT-MAC) produced radioactivity concentration values significantly higher than $^{68}Ge$-based segmented attenuation correction (Ge-SAC) in PET images. However, it was unknown whether the radioactivity concentration difference resulted from different sources (CT vs. Ge) or types (MAC vs. SAC) of attenuation correction (AC). We evaluated the influences of the source and type of AC on the radioactivity concentration differences between reconstructed PET images in normal subjects and patients. Material and Methods: Five normal subjects and 35 patients with a known or suspected cancer underwent $^{18}F-FDG$ PET/CT. In each subject, attenuation corrected PET images using OSEM algorithm (28 subsets, 2 iterations) were reconstructed by 4 methods: CT-MAC, CT-SAC, Ge-MAC, and Ge-SAC. The physiological uptake in normal subjects and pathological uptake in patients were quantitatively compared between the PET images according to the source and type of AC. Results: The SUVs of physiological uptake measured in CT-MAC PET images were significantly higher than other 3 differently corrected PET images. Maximum SUVs of the 145 foci with abnormal FDG uptake in CT-MAC images were significantly highest among 4 differently corrected PET images with a difference of 2.4% to 5.1% (p<0.001). The SUVs of pathological uptake in Ge-MAC images were significantly higher than those in CT-SAC and Ge-MAC PET images (p<0.001). Conclusion: Quantitative radioactivity values were highest in CT-MAC PET images. The adoption of MAC may make a more contribution than the adoption of CT attenuation map to such differences.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200-9
  2. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22: 4357-68 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.120
  3. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998;25: 2046-53 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598392
  4. Von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol 2000;10(Suppl 3):S377-80 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050059
  5. Xu EZ, Mullani NA, Gould KL, Anderson WL. A segmented attenuation correction for PET. J Nucl Med 1991;32:161-5
  6. Bettinardi V, Pagani E, Gilardi MC, Landoni C, Riddell C, Rizzo G, et al. An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:447-58 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590050410
  7. Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, Marshall LT, Links JM, Kohlmyer S, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuationcorrected images. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1137-43
  8. Kamel E, Hany TF, Burger C, Treyer V, Lonn AH, von Schulthess GK, et al. CT vs $^{68}Ge$ attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT system: evaluation of the effect of lowering the CT tube current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2002;29:346-50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-001-0698-9
  9. Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [$^{18}F$]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326-35 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590100566
  10. Bong J-K, Kim H-J, Son H-K, Park Y-Y, Park H-J, Yun M, et al. Assessment of attenuation correction techniques with a $^{137}Cs$ point source. Korean J Nucl Med 2005;39:57-68