title: Image quality assessment of automatic three-segment MR attenuation correction vs. CT attenuation correction.
abstract: The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the usefulness of Positron emission tomography/Magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) images in a clinical setting by assessing the image quality of Positron emission tomography (PET) images using a three-segment MR attenuation correction (MRAC) versus the standard CT attenuation correction (CTAC). We prospectively studied 48 patients who had their clinically scheduled FDG-PET/CT followed by an FDG-PET/MRI. Three nuclear radiologists evaluated the image quality of CTAC vs. MRAC using a Likert scale (five-point scale). A two-sided, paired t-test was performed for comparison purposes. The image quality was further assessed by categorizing it as acceptable (equal to 4 and 5 on the five-point Likert scale) or unacceptable (equal to 1, 2, and 3 on the five-point Likert scale) quality using the McNemar test. When assessing the image quality using the Likert scale, one reader observed a significant difference between CTAC and MRAC (p=0.0015), whereas the other readers did not observe a difference (p=0.8924 and p=0.1880, respectively). When performing the grouping analysis, no significant difference was found between CTAC vs. MRAC for any of the readers (p=0.6137 for reader 1, p=1 for reader 2, and p=0.8137 for reader 3). All three readers more often reported artifacts on the MRAC images than on the CTAC images. There was no clinically significant difference in quality between PET images generated on a PET/MRI system and those from a Positron emission tomography/Computed tomography (PET/CT) system. PET images using the automatic three-segmented MR attenuation method provided diagnostic image quality. However, future research regarding the image quality obtained using different MR attenuation based methods is warranted before PET/MRI can be used clinically.
authors: University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Department of Radiology 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106.
authors: Sasan
authors: S
authors: Partovi
authors: Andres
authors: A
authors: Kohan
authors: Chiara
authors: C
authors: Gaeta
authors: Christian
authors: C
authors: Rubbert
authors: Jose L
authors: JL
authors: Vercher-Conejero
authors: Robert S
authors: RS
authors: Jones
authors: James K
authors: JK
authors: O'Donnell
authors: Patrick
authors: P
authors: Wojtylak
authors: Peter
authors: P
authors: Faulhaber
keywords: FDG; PET/CT; PET/MRI; attenuation correction; hybrid imaging; image quality
references: Magn Reson Med. 1991 Jun;19(2):276-84
references: 1881316
references: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;2(4):458-74
references: 23145362
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2005 Oct;35(4):214-9
references: 16150243
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Sep;38(9):1691-701
references: 21688050
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):520-6
references: 19289430
references: Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jun;29(5):587-600
references: 21524870
references: JAMA. 2003 Dec 24;290(24):3199-206
references: 14693872
references: J Nucl Med. 2012 Jun;53(6):845-55
references: 22534830
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):594-601
references: 23296642
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36 Suppl 1:S93-104
references: 19104810
references: MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):159-71
references: 23053713
references: Nat Med. 2008 Apr;14(4):459-65
references: 18376410
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Sep;32(9):1050-6
references: 15846487
references: Radiographics. 2005 Jul-Aug;25(4):897-912
references: 16009814
references: Cancer Biomark. 2010;7(4):211-8
references: 21576814
references: J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):796-804
references: 22505568
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Aug;199(2):272-7
references: 22826387
references: Clin Imaging. 2011 Jan-Feb;35(1):49-63
references: 21237418
references: Invest Radiol. 2013 May;48(5):313-22
references: 23296082
references: Magn Reson Med Sci. 2010;9(4):167-75
references: 21187685
references: J Nucl Med. 2011 Sep;52(9):1392-9
references: 21828115
references: Radiology. 1984 Oct;153(1):189-94
references: 6089263
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2004 Oct;34(4):274-92
references: 15493005
references: MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):115-26
references: 22923020
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Aug;21(6):1117-23
references: 21792015
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Jan;38(1):138-52
references: 20922522
references: J Nucl Med. 2004 May;45(5):797-801
references: 15136629
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36 Suppl 1:S56-68
references: 19194703
references: Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):6010-9
references: 22047365
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 May;51(5):812-8
references: 20439508
references: Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012 Jan-Feb;18(1):46-59
references: 21928189
references: MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):99-113
references: 23179594
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2003 Jul;33(3):166-79
references: 12931319
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 7;56(13):4147-59
references: 21693791
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jun;35(6):1142-6
references: 18283452
references: MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):81-98
references: 22875599
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jul;39(7):1154-60
references: 22526955
references: J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52(12):1914-22
references: 22080447