Evaluation of MR Based Respiratory Motion Correction Technique in Liver PET/MRI Study

Liver PET/MRI 검사 시 MR 기반 호흡 움직임 보정 방법의 유용성 평가

  • Do, Yong Ho (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Hong Jae (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jin Eui (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Noh, Gyeong Woon (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 도용호 (서울대학교병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 이홍재 (서울대학교병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 김진의 (서울대학교병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 노경운 (서울대학교병원 핵의학과)
  • Received : 2018.04.14
  • Accepted : 2018.04.30
  • Published : 2018.05.19

Abstract

Purpose Respiratory motion during PET/MRI acquisition may result in image blurring and error in measurement for volume and quantification of lesion. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes of quantitative accuracy, tumor size and image quality by applying MR based respiratory motion correction technique (MBRMCT) using integrated PET/MR scanner. Materials and Methods Data of 30 patients (aged $62.5{\pm}10.2y$) underwent $^{18}F-FDG$ liver PET/MR (Biograph mMR 3.0T, Siemens) study were collected. PET listmode data for 7 minutes was simultaneously acquired with maximum average gate (MAG), minimum time gate (MTG) and non gate (NG) T1 weighted MR images. Gated PET reconstruction was performed using mu-maps generated from MAG and MTG by setting 35% of efficiency window. Maximum SUV ($SUV_{max}$), peak SUV ($SUV_{peak}$), tumor size and full width at half maximum (FWHM) in the z-axis direction of MAG, MTG and NG PET images were evaluated. Results Compared to NG, mean $SUV_{max}$ and $SUV_{peak}$ were increased in MAG 13.15%(p<0.0001), 8.66%(p<0.0001), MTG 13.27%(p<0.0001), 8.80%(p<0.0001) and mean tumor size and FWHM were decreased in MAG 14.47%(p<0.0001), 15.49%(p=0.0004), MTG 14.89%(p<0.0001), 15.79%(p=0.0003) respectively. Mean $SUV_{max}$ and $SUV_{peak}$ of MTG were increased by 0.07%(p=0.8802), 0.13%(p=0.7766). Mean tumor size and FWHM of MTG were decreased by 0.49%(p=0.2786), 0.36%(p=0.2488) compared to MAG. There was no statistically significant difference between MAG and MTG which increase total scan time for about 7 and 2 minutes. Conclusion SUV, accuracy of tumor size and spatial resolution were improved in both of MAG and MTG by applying MBRMCT without installing additional hardware in liver PET/MR study. More accurate information can be provided with the increase of 2 minutes scan time if applying MTG of MBRMCT to various abdominal PET/MR studies affected by respiratory motion.

PET/MRI 검사 시 호흡에 의한 움직임은 영상의 질 저하는 물론 종양의 크기, 표준섭취계수의 오차를 발생시키는 원인이 된다. 본 연구에서는 일체형 PET/MRI 장비에서 MR기반 호흡 움직임 보정 방법의 적용에 따른 종양의 표준섭취계수, 크기와 영상 품질 변화를 평가하고자 하였다. Biograph mMR 3.0T (Siemens, Germany)장비에서 2016년 3월부터 7월까지 $^{18}F-FDG$ liver PET/MRI 검사를 시행한 30명 ($62.5{\pm}10.2$세)의 데이터를 분석하였다. 7분의 PET listmode 데이터를 획득하는 동안 MR 기반 호흡 움직임 보정 방법인 MAG, MTG와 NG T1 weighted MR 영상을 획득하였다. Gated PET 영상의 재구성은 35% efficiency window가 적용된 MAG와 MTG로부터 획득된 감쇄보정영상을 이용하여 시행하였다. Non-gate, MAG, MTG 영상에서 측정된 종양의 표준섭취계수와 Z축 방향의 크기 그리고 반치폭을 분석하였다 평균 $SUV_{max}$$SUV_{peak}$는 NG 대비 MAG 13.15%(P<0.0001), 8.66%(P<0.0001), MTG 13.27%(P<0.0001), 8.80%(P<0.0001) 증가하였으며 Z-축에서 평균 종양의 크기와 반치폭은 MAG 14.47%(P<0.0001), 15.49%(P=0.0004), MTG 14.89%(P<0.0001), 15.79%(P=0.0003) 감소하였으며 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다. MAG와 MTG 비교 평가에서 MTG의 $SUV_{max}$$SUV_{peak}$는 MAG 대비 0.07%(P=0.8802), 0.13%(P=0.7766) 증가하였으며 Z-축에서 평균 종양의 크기와 반치폭은 0.49%(P=0.2786), 0.36%(P=0.2488) 감소하였다. 약 7분과 2분의 추가 검사시간이 필요한 MAG와 MTG에서 표준섭취계수와 종양의 크기, 반치폭에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 간 PET/MRI 검사 시 MR 기반 호흡 움직임 보정 방법을 적용하였을 때 NG 대비 MAG, MTG 모두에서 표준섭취계수와 종양의 크기 및 공간분해능이 개선되었으며 MAG와 MTG의 결과 값은 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 호흡에 의한 움직임에 영향을 받는 다양한 상 복부 검사에 MBRMCT를 적용 시 추가적인 장비의 설치 없이 약 2분의 추가 검사시간이 필요한 MTG 방법 적용하여 NG 대비 보다 정확한 정보를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Vangel MG, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients--a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology 2013;269:857-869. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131306
  2. Gaertner FC, Furst S, Schwaiger M. PET/MR: a paradigm shift. Cancer Imaging 2013;13:36-52
  3. Jadvar H, Colletti PM. Competitive advantage of PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.05.028
  4. Wehrl HF, Sauter AW, Judenhofer MS, Pichler BJ. Combined PET/MR imaging--technology and applications. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2010;9:5-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/153303461000900102
  5. Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Alavi A. The clinical role of fusion imaging using PET, CT, and MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2010;18:133-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2009.09.010
  6. Balyasnikova S, Lofgren J, de Nijs R, Zamogilnaya Y, Hojgaard L, Fischer BM. PET/MR in oncology: an introduction with focus on MR and future perspectives for hybrid imaging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;2:458-474.
  7. M. M. Osman, C. Cohade, Y. Nakamoto, and R. L. Wahl, "Respiratorymotion artifacts on PET emission images obtained using CT attenuation correction on PET-CT," European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 30, no. 4, 2003; 603-606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1024-x
  8. S. J. Park, D. Ionascu, J. Killoran et al., 'Evaluation of the combined effects of target size, respiratory motion and background activity on 3D and 4DPET/CT images,' Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, no. 13, 2008; 3661-3679. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/13/018