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
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
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 - PET/CT
KW - Periodic motion
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
C2 - 29672464
AN - SCOPUS:85048864083
SN - 0143-3636
VL - 39
SP - 665
EP - 671
JO - Nuclear Medicine Communications
JF - Nuclear Medicine Communications
IS - 7
ER -