title: Clinical assessment of MR-guided 3-class and 4-class attenuation correction in PET/MR.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We compare the quantitative accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based attenuation correction (AC) using the 3-class attenuation map (PET-MRAC3c) implemented on the Ingenuity TF PET/MRI and the 4-class attenuation map (PET-MRAC4c) similar to the approach used on the Siemens mMR PET/MR considering CT-based attenuation-corrected PET images (PET-CTAC) as standard of reference.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fourteen patients with malignant tumors underwent whole-body sequential 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/X-ray computed tomography (CT) and PET/MR imaging. A 3-class attenuation map was obtained from segmentation of T1-weighted MR images followed by assignment of attenuation coefficients (air 0 cm(-1), lung 0.022 cm(-1), soft tissue 0.096 cm(-1)), whereas a 4-class attenuation map was derived from a MR Dixon sequence (air 0 cm(-1), lung 0.018 cm(-1), fat 0.086 cm(-1), soft tissue 0.096 cm(-1)). Additional adipose tissue class and inner body air cavities (e.g., sinus and abdomen) were also considered. Different attenuation coefficients were assigned to the lungs since the two techniques were implemented as they were proposed without any modification. Standardized uptake value (SUV)mean and SUVmax metrics were calculated for volumes of interest in various organs/tissues and malignant lesions. Well-established metrics were used for the analysis of SUVs estimated using both PET-MRAC techniques and PET-CTAC including relative error, Spearman rank correlation, and Bland and Altman analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  PET-MRAC3c and PET-MRAC4c revealed significant underestimation of SUV for normal organs (-17.4 ± 8.5 and -22.0 ± 6.8%, respectively) compared to PET-CTAC. Lesions' SUV presented the same trend with larger underestimation for PET-MRAC4c (-9.2 ± 6.1%) compared to PET-MRAC3c (-3.9 ± 9.0). The different attenuation coefficients assigned to the lungs with both techniques resulted in significant positive bias on PET-MRAC3c (18.6 ± 15.3%) and low negative bias on PET-MRAC4c (-0.5 ± 13.3%). Both approaches yielded the largest differences in and near bony structures. Despite the large bias, there was good correlation between PET-MRAC3c (R = 0.97, P < 0.01) and PET-CTAC, and PET-MRAC4c (R = 0.97, P < 0.01) and PET-CTAC, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PET-MRAC3c resulted in significant systematic positive bias in the lungs owing to the lower attenuation coefficient used and negative bias in other regions. PET-MRAC4c slightly underestimated tracer uptake in the lungs and led to even larger negative bias than PET-MRAC3c in other body regions. The presence of artifacts in the MRAC might lead to misinterpretation of clinical studies. As such, the attenuation map needs to be checked for artifacts as part of the reading procedure to avoid misinterpretation of SUV measurements.
authors.affiliation: Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Medical Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Hossein
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Arabi
authors.forename: Olivier
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Rager
authors.forename: Asma
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Alem
authors.forename: Arthur
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Varoquaux
authors.forename: Minerva
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Becker
authors.forename: Habib
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zaidi
mesh_terms: D016477:Artifacts; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D064847:Multimodal Imaging; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography; D012044:Regression Analysis; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):796-804
references.pmid: 22505568
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Jan;40(1):12-21
references.pmid: 23053323
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2012 Dec;53(12):1878-82
references.pmid: 23081993
references.citation: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2013;16(Pt 1):147-54
references.pmid: 24505660
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Sep;38(9):1691-701
references.pmid: 21688050
references.citation: MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):115-26
references.pmid: 22923020
references.citation: Nucl Med Biol. 2000 Oct;27(7):643-6
references.pmid: 11091106
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Jan;38(1):138-52
references.pmid: 20922522
references.citation: Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5667-89
references.pmid: 21992383
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2010 Aug 11;30(32):10601-8
references.pmid: 20702692
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):594-601
references.pmid: 23296642
references.citation: Pediatr Radiol. 2013 Jul;43(7):860-75
references.pmid: 23306377
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2011 May 21;56(10):3091-106
references.pmid: 21508443
references.citation: Ann Nucl Med. 2013 Feb;27(2):152-62
references.pmid: 23264064
references.citation: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205
references.pmid: 19923044
references.citation: Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
references.pmid: 2868172
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2011 Feb;52(2):188-95
references.pmid: 21233173
references.citation: Radiology. 2007 Sep;244(3):639-42
references.pmid: 17709821
references.citation: Invest Radiol. 2013 May;48(5):313-22
references.pmid: 23296082
references.citation: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013 Oct 1;60(5):3373-3382
references.pmid: 24966415
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2011 Sep;52(9):1392-9
references.pmid: 21828115
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):520-6
references.pmid: 19289430
references.citation: Semin Nucl Med. 2013 Jan;43(1):45-59
references.pmid: 23178088
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Jul 08;14(4):4163
references.pmid: 23835382
references.citation: Radiology. 1984 Oct;153(1):189-94
references.pmid: 6089263
references.citation: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012 Dec;31(12):2224-33
references.pmid: 22899574
references.citation: Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):6010-9
references.pmid: 22047365
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2010 May;51(5):812-8
references.pmid: 20439508
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Mar;41(3):462-75
references.pmid: 24108458
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):937-48
references.pmid: 12773003
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Apr;161(4 Pt 1):1264-73
references.pmid: 10764322
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116-28
references.pmid: 16545965
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jul;39(7):1154-60
references.pmid: 22526955
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52(12):1914-22
references.pmid: 22080447
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2005 Mar;25(1):278-86
references.pmid: 15734362
references.citation: Radiology. 2001 Dec;221(3):763-7
references.pmid: 11719674
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 21;57(4):885-99
references.pmid: 22290428
references.citation: Nat Med. 2008 Apr;14(4):459-65
references.pmid: 18376410
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2014 Apr;87(1036):20130677
references.pmid: 24649835
references.citation: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2011 Mar;30(3):804-13
references.pmid: 21118768
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2010 Sep;51(9):1431-8
references.pmid: 20810759