Effects of breathing motion on PET acquisitions

Step and shoot versus continuous bed motion

Yoshiki Owaki, Tadaki Nakahara, Takeshi Shimizu, Anne M. Smith, Wing K. Luk, Kazumasa Inoue, Masahiro Fukushi, Kiyotaka Nakajima

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives Continuous bed motion (CBM) acquisition recently became available in whole-body PET/CT scanners in addition to the conventional step and shoot (S&S) acquisition. In this work, we compared the image quality between these acquisition methods using a phantom simulating periodic motion to mimic motion from patient breathing in a controlled manner. Methods PET image quality was assessed using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IQ torso phantom filled with an 18F-FDG solution using a 4 : 1 targetto- background ratio. The phantom was scanned in two states: no motion (stationary) and with periodic motion in the axial direction with a displacement ± 10mm from the initial position. Both S&S and CBM scans were repeated 10 times in an alternating order, whereby the acquisition duration of each scan was adjusted to make the true counts approximately comparable to compensate for the decaying 18F-FDG. Results The recovery coefficient analysis showed that in the stationary state, the 10mm sphere recovery did not show any difference between S&S and CBM. With motion, the recovery coefficient was lower by ∼40% for both modes of acquisition. In addition, the image-based volume analysis of the 10mm sphere showed 1.67 (1.57-1.69) cm3 for S&S and 1.73 (1.66-1.83) cm3 for CBM (P=0.13), and there was no difference between two modes. Our study indicated that when the acquisition conditions for S&S and CBM (equivalent net trues, identical phantom motion, and identical CT image used for PET corrections) were controlled carefully, these acquisition modes resulted in equivalent image quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)665-671
Number of pages7
JournalNuclear Medicine Communications
Volume39
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Respiration
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Torso

Keywords

  • Continuous bed motion
  • Periodic motion
  • PET/CT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Effects of breathing motion on PET acquisitions : Step and shoot versus continuous bed motion. / Owaki, Yoshiki; Nakahara, Tadaki; Shimizu, Takeshi; Smith, Anne M.; Luk, Wing K.; Inoue, Kazumasa; Fukushi, Masahiro; Nakajima, Kiyotaka.

In: Nuclear Medicine Communications, Vol. 39, No. 7, 01.01.2018, p. 665-671.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Owaki, Yoshiki ; Nakahara, Tadaki ; Shimizu, Takeshi ; Smith, Anne M. ; Luk, Wing K. ; Inoue, Kazumasa ; Fukushi, Masahiro ; Nakajima, Kiyotaka. / Effects of breathing motion on PET acquisitions : Step and shoot versus continuous bed motion. In: Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 7. pp. 665-671.
@article{c0aabd3e5ee840e1a1c05cd496ed6a01,
title = "Effects of breathing motion on PET acquisitions: Step and shoot versus continuous bed motion",
abstract = "Objectives Continuous bed motion (CBM) acquisition recently became available in whole-body PET/CT scanners in addition to the conventional step and shoot (S&S) acquisition. In this work, we compared the image quality between these acquisition methods using a phantom simulating periodic motion to mimic motion from patient breathing in a controlled manner. Methods PET image quality was assessed using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IQ torso phantom filled with an 18F-FDG solution using a 4 : 1 targetto- background ratio. The phantom was scanned in two states: no motion (stationary) and with periodic motion in the axial direction with a displacement ± 10mm from the initial position. Both S&S and CBM scans were repeated 10 times in an alternating order, whereby the acquisition duration of each scan was adjusted to make the true counts approximately comparable to compensate for the decaying 18F-FDG. Results The recovery coefficient analysis showed that in the stationary state, the 10mm sphere recovery did not show any difference between S&S and CBM. With motion, the recovery coefficient was lower by ∼40{\%} for both modes of acquisition. In addition, the image-based volume analysis of the 10mm sphere showed 1.67 (1.57-1.69) cm3 for S&S and 1.73 (1.66-1.83) cm3 for CBM (P=0.13), and there was no difference between two modes. Our study indicated that when the acquisition conditions for S&S and CBM (equivalent net trues, identical phantom motion, and identical CT image used for PET corrections) were controlled carefully, these acquisition modes resulted in equivalent image quality.",
keywords = "Continuous bed motion, Periodic motion, PET/CT",
author = "Yoshiki Owaki and Tadaki Nakahara and Takeshi Shimizu and Smith, {Anne M.} and Luk, {Wing K.} and Kazumasa Inoue and Masahiro Fukushi and Kiyotaka Nakajima",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MNM.0000000000000852",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "665--671",
journal = "Nuclear Medicine Communications",
issn = "0143-3636",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of breathing motion on PET acquisitions

T2 - Step and shoot versus continuous bed motion

AU - Owaki, Yoshiki

AU - Nakahara, Tadaki

AU - Shimizu, Takeshi

AU - Smith, Anne M.

AU - Luk, Wing K.

AU - Inoue, Kazumasa

AU - Fukushi, Masahiro

AU - Nakajima, Kiyotaka

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives Continuous bed motion (CBM) acquisition recently became available in whole-body PET/CT scanners in addition to the conventional step and shoot (S&S) acquisition. In this work, we compared the image quality between these acquisition methods using a phantom simulating periodic motion to mimic motion from patient breathing in a controlled manner. Methods PET image quality was assessed using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IQ torso phantom filled with an 18F-FDG solution using a 4 : 1 targetto- background ratio. The phantom was scanned in two states: no motion (stationary) and with periodic motion in the axial direction with a displacement ± 10mm from the initial position. Both S&S and CBM scans were repeated 10 times in an alternating order, whereby the acquisition duration of each scan was adjusted to make the true counts approximately comparable to compensate for the decaying 18F-FDG. Results The recovery coefficient analysis showed that in the stationary state, the 10mm sphere recovery did not show any difference between S&S and CBM. With motion, the recovery coefficient was lower by ∼40% for both modes of acquisition. In addition, the image-based volume analysis of the 10mm sphere showed 1.67 (1.57-1.69) cm3 for S&S and 1.73 (1.66-1.83) cm3 for CBM (P=0.13), and there was no difference between two modes. Our study indicated that when the acquisition conditions for S&S and CBM (equivalent net trues, identical phantom motion, and identical CT image used for PET corrections) were controlled carefully, these acquisition modes resulted in equivalent image quality.

AB - Objectives Continuous bed motion (CBM) acquisition recently became available in whole-body PET/CT scanners in addition to the conventional step and shoot (S&S) acquisition. In this work, we compared the image quality between these acquisition methods using a phantom simulating periodic motion to mimic motion from patient breathing in a controlled manner. Methods PET image quality was assessed using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IQ torso phantom filled with an 18F-FDG solution using a 4 : 1 targetto- background ratio. The phantom was scanned in two states: no motion (stationary) and with periodic motion in the axial direction with a displacement ± 10mm from the initial position. Both S&S and CBM scans were repeated 10 times in an alternating order, whereby the acquisition duration of each scan was adjusted to make the true counts approximately comparable to compensate for the decaying 18F-FDG. Results The recovery coefficient analysis showed that in the stationary state, the 10mm sphere recovery did not show any difference between S&S and CBM. With motion, the recovery coefficient was lower by ∼40% for both modes of acquisition. In addition, the image-based volume analysis of the 10mm sphere showed 1.67 (1.57-1.69) cm3 for S&S and 1.73 (1.66-1.83) cm3 for CBM (P=0.13), and there was no difference between two modes. Our study indicated that when the acquisition conditions for S&S and CBM (equivalent net trues, identical phantom motion, and identical CT image used for PET corrections) were controlled carefully, these acquisition modes resulted in equivalent image quality.

KW - Continuous bed motion

KW - Periodic motion

KW - PET/CT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048864083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048864083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000852

DO - 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000852

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 665

EP - 671

JO - Nuclear Medicine Communications

JF - Nuclear Medicine Communications

SN - 0143-3636

IS - 7

ER -