Martin Lyngby Lassen

Reproducibility of MRI Dixon-based attenuation correction in combined PET/MR with applications for lean body mass estimation

The aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of standard, Dixon-based attenuation correction (MR-AC) in PET/MR imaging. A further aim was to estimate a patient-specific lean body mass (LBM) from these MR-AC data. Methods: Ten subjects were positioned in a fully integrated PET/MR system, and 3 consecutive multibed acquisitions of the standard MR-AC image data were acquired. For each subject and MR-AC map, the following compartmental volumes were calculated: total body, soft tissue (ST), fat, lung, and intermediate tissue (IT). Intrasubject differences in the total body and subcompartmental volumes (ST, fat, lung, and IT) were assessed by means of coefficients of variation (CVs) calculated across the 3 consecutive measurements and, again, across these measurements but excluding those affected by major artifacts. All subjects underwent a body composition measurement using air displacement plethysmography (ADP) that was used to calculate a reference LBMADP. A second LBM estimate was derived from available MR-AC data using a formula incorporating the respective tissue volumes and densities as well as the subject-specific body weights. A third LBM estimate was obtained from a sex-specific formula (LBMFormula). Pearson correlation was calculated for LBMADP, LBMMR-AC, and LBMFormula. Further, linear regression analysis was performed on LBMMR-AC and LBMADP. Results: The mean CV for all 30 scans was 2.1 ± 1.9% (TB). When missing tissue artifacts were excluded, the CV was reduced to 0.3 ± 0.2%. The mean CVs for the subcompartments before and after exclusion of artifacts were 0.9 ± 1.1% and 0.7 ± 0.7% for the ST, 2.9 ± 4.1% and 1.3 ± 1.0% for fat, and 3.6 ± 3.9% and 1.3 ± 0.7% for the IT, respectively. Correlation was highest for LBMMR-AC and LBMADP (r = 0.99). Linear regression of data excluding artifacts resulted in a scaling factor of 1.06 for LBMMR-AC. Conclusion: LBMMR-AC is shown to correlate well with standard LBM measurements and thus offers routine LBM-based SUV quantification in PET/MR. However, MR-AC images must be controlled for systematic artifacts, including missing tissue and tissue swaps. Efforts to minimize these artifacts could help improve the reproducibility of MR-AC.

Hybrid imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

State-of-the-art patient management frequently requires the use of non-invasive imaging methods to assess the anatomy, function or molecular-biological conditions of patients or study subjects. Such imaging methods can be singular, providing either anatomical or molecular information, or they can be combined, thus, providing “anato-metabolic” information. Hybrid imaging denotes image acquisitions on systems that physically combine complementary imaging modalities for an improved diagnostic accuracy and confidence as well as for increased patient comfort. The physical combination of formerly independent imaging modalities was driven by leading innovators in the field of clinical research and benefited from technological advances that permitted the operation of PET and MR in close physical proximity, for example. This review covers milestones of the development of various hybrid imaging systems for use in clinical practice and small-animal research. Special attention is given to technological advances that helped the adoption of hybrid imaging, as well as to introducing methodological concepts that benefit from the availability of complementary anatomical and biological information, such as new types of image reconstruction and data correction schemes. The ultimate goal of hybrid imaging is to provide useful, complementary and quantitative information during patient work-up. Hybrid imaging also opens the door to multi-parametric assessment of diseases, which will help us better understand the causes of various diseases that currently contribute to a large fraction of healthcare costs.

Hybrid cardiac imaging using PET/MRI: a joint position statement by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

AbstractPositron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have both been used for decades in cardiovascular imaging. Since 2010, hybrid PET/MRI using sequential and integrated scanner platforms has been available, with hybrid cardiac PET/MR imaging protocols increasingly incorporated into clinical workflows. Given the range of complementary information provided by each method, the use of hybrid PET/MRI may be justified and beneficial in particular clinical settings for the evaluation of different disease entities. In the present joint position statement, we critically review the role and value of integrated PET/MRI in cardiovascular imaging, provide a technical overview of cardiac PET/MRI and practical advice related to the cardiac PET/MRI workflow, identify cardiovascular applications that can potentially benefit from hybrid PET/MRI, and describe the needs for future development and research. In order to encourage its wide dissemination, this article is freely accessible on the European Radiology and European Journal of Hybrid Imaging web sites. • Studies and case-reports indicate that PET/MRI is a feasible and robust technology.• Promising fields of application include a variety of cardiac conditions.• Larger studies are required to demonstrate its incremental and cost-effective value.• The translation of novel radiopharmaceuticals and MR-sequences will provide exciting new opportunities.

Reproducibility of Quantitative Brain Imaging Using a PET-Only and a Combined PET/MR System

The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of migrating a quantitative brain imaging protocol from a positron emission tomography (PET)-only system to an integrated PET/MR system. Potential differences in both absolute radiotracer concentration as well as in the derived kinetic parameters as a function of PET system choice have been investigated. Five healthy volunteers underwent dynamic (R)-[11C]verapamil imaging on the same day using a GE-Advance (PET-only) and a Siemens Biograph mMR system (PET/MR). PET-emission data were reconstructed using a transmission-based attenuation correction (AC) map (PET-only), whereas a standard MR-DIXON as well as a low-dose CT AC map was applied to PET/MR emission data. Kinetic modeling based on arterial blood sampling was performed using a 1-tissue-2-rate constant compartment model, yielding kinetic parameters (K1 and k2) and distribution volume (VT). Differences for parametric values obtained in the PET-only and the PET/MR systems were analyzed using a 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Comparison of DIXON-based AC (PET/MR) with emission data derived from the PET-only system revealed average inter-system differences of −33 ± 14% (p < 0.05) for the K1 parameter and −19 ± 9% (p < 0.05) for k2. Using a CT-based AC for PET/MR resulted in slightly lower systematic differences of −16 ± 18% for K1 and −9 ± 10% for k2. The average differences in VT were −18 ± 10% (p < 0.05) for DIXON- and −8 ± 13% for CT-based AC. Significant systematic differences were observed for kinetic parameters derived from emission data obtained from PET/MR and PET-only imaging due to different standard AC methods employed. Therefore, a transfer of imaging protocols from PET-only to PET/MR systems is not straightforward without application of proper correction methods. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, identifier 2013-001724-19