Evaluation of a new motion correction algorithm in PET/CT: combining the entire acquired PET data to create a single three-dimensional motion-corrected PET/CT image

• Published in: Nuclear medicine communications Vol. 37; no. 2; p. 162
• Main Authors: Minamimoto, Ryogo, Mitsumoto, Takuya, Miyata, Yoko, Sunaoka, Fumio, Morooka, Miyako, Okasaki, Momoko, Iagaru, Andrei, Kubota, Kazuo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.02.2016
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; Biological Transport; Female; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - metabolism; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Male; Movement; Multimodal Imaging; Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Neoplasms - metabolism; Neoplasms - pathology; Positron-Emission Tomography; Respiratory-Gated Imaging Techniques; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Tumor Burden
• ISSN: 1473-5628
• DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000423

This study evaluated the potential of Q.Freeze algorithm for reducing motion artifacts, in comparison with ungated imaging (UG) and respiratory-gated imaging (RG). Twenty-nine patients with 53 lesions who had undergone RG F-FDG PET/CT were included in this study. Using PET list mode data, five series of PET images [UG, RG, and QF images with an acquisition duration of 3 min (QF3), 5 min (QF5), and 10 min (QF10)] were reconstructed retrospectively. The image quality was evaluated first. Next, quantitative metrics [maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), SD, metabolic tumor volume, signal to noise ratio, or lesion to background ratio] were calculated for the liver, background, and each lesion, and the results were compared across the series. QF10 and QF5 showed better image quality compared with all other images. SUVmax in the liver, background, and lesions was lower with QF10 and QF5 than with the others, but there were no statistically significant differences in SUVmean and the lesion to background ratios. The SD with UG and RG was significantly higher than that with QF5 and QF10. The metabolic tumor volume in QF3 and QF5 was significantly lower than that in UG. The Q.Freeze algorithm can improve the quality of PET imaging compared with RG and UG.