2004PubMedRequires access

CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner.

Pascal Koepfli, Thomas F. Hany, Christophe Wyss, Mehdi Namdar, Cyrill Burger, Alexander V Konstantinidis, Thomas Berthold, Gustav K. von Schulthess, Philipp A. Kaufmann

Open publisher page 146 citations

Abstract

UNLABELLED: In routine PET, a 10- to 20-min transmission scan with a rotating (68)Ge source is commonly obtained for attenuation correction (AC). AC is time-consuming using this procedure and could considerably be shortened by instead using a rapid CT scan. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of CT AC in quantitative myocardial perfusion PET using a hybrid PET/CT scanner. METHODS: (13)N-labeled NH(3) and PET were used to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF) (mL/min/g) at rest and during standard adenosine stress. In group 1 (n = 7), CT scans (0.5 s) of the heart area with different tube currents (10, 40, 80, and 120 mA) were compared with a standard (68)Ge transmission (20 min) and with no AC. In group 2 (n = 3), the repeatability of 8 consecutive CT scans at a tube current of 10 mA was assessed. In group 3 (n = 4), emission was preceded and followed by 3 CT scans (10 mA) and 1 (68)Ge scan for each patient. For reconstruction, filtered backprojection (FBP) was compared with iterative reconstruction (IT). RESULTS: For group 1, no significant difference in mean MBF for resting and hyperemic scans was found when emission reconstructed with (68)Ge AC was compared with emission reconstructed with CT AC at any of the different tube currents. Only emission without any correction differed significantly from (68)Ge AC. For group 2, repeated measurements revealed a coefficient of variance ranging from 2% to 5% and from 2% to 6% at rest and at stress, respectively. For group 3, similar reproducibility coefficients (RC) for MBF were obtained when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with (68)Ge AC(IT) (RC = 0.218) and when CT AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.227). Even better reproducibility (lower RC) was found when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(FBP) (RC = 0.130) and when (68)Ge AC(IT) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.146). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for the assessment of qualitative and quantitative MBF with a hybrid PET/CT scanner, the use of CT AC (with a tube current of 10 mA) instead of (68)Ge AC provides accurate results.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

UNLABELLED: In routine PET, a 10- to 20-min transmission scan with a rotating (68)Ge source is commonly obtained for attenuation correction (AC). AC is time-consuming using this procedure and could considerably be shortened by instead using a rapid CT scan. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of CT AC in quantitative myocardial perfusion PET using a hybrid PET/CT scanner. METHODS: (13)N-labeled NH(3) and PET were used to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF) (mL/min/g) at rest and during standard adenosine stress. In group 1 (n = 7), CT scans (0.5 s) of the heart area with different tube currents (10, 40, 80, and 120 mA) were compared with a standard (68)Ge transmission (20 min) and with no AC. In group 2 (n = 3), the repeatability of 8 consecutive CT scans at a tube current of 10 mA was assessed. In group 3 (n = 4), emission was preceded and followed by 3 CT scans (10 mA) and 1 (68)Ge scan for each patient. For reconstruction, filtered backprojection (FBP) was compared with iterative reconstruction (IT). RESULTS: For group 1, no significant difference in mean MBF for resting and hyperemic scans was found when emission reconstructed with (68)Ge AC was compared with emission reconstructed with CT AC at any of the different tube currents. Only emission without any correction differed significantly from (68)Ge AC. For group 2, repeated measurements revealed a coefficient of variance ranging from 2% to 5% and from 2% to 6% at rest and at stress, respectively. For group 3, similar reproducibility coefficients (RC) for MBF were obtained when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with (68)Ge AC(IT) (RC = 0.218) and when CT AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.227). Even better reproducibility (lower RC) was found when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(FBP) (RC = 0.130) and when (68)Ge AC(IT) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.146). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for the assessment of qualitative and quantitative MBF with a hybrid PET/CT scanner, the use of CT AC (with a tube current of 10 mA) instead of (68)Ge AC provides accurate results.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 146 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

UNLABELLED: In routine PET, a 10- to 20-min transmission scan with a rotating (68)Ge source is commonly obtained for attenuation correction (AC). AC is time-consuming using this procedure and could considerably be shortened by instead using a rapid CT scan. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of CT AC in quantitative myocardial perfusion PET using a hybrid PET/CT scanner. METHODS: (13)N-labeled NH(3) and PET were used to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF) (mL/min/g) at rest and during standard adenosine stress. In group 1 (n = 7), CT scans (0.5 s) of the heart area with different tube currents (10, 40, 80, and 120 mA) were compared with a standard (68)Ge transmission (20 min) and with no AC. In group 2 (n = 3), the repeatability of 8 consecutive CT scans at a tube current of 10 mA was assessed. In group 3 (n = 4), emission was preceded and followed by 3 CT scans (10 mA) and 1 (68)Ge scan for each patient. For reconstruction, filtered backprojection (FBP) was compared with iterative reconstruction (IT). RESULTS: For group 1, no significant difference in mean MBF for resting and hyperemic scans was found when emission reconstructed with (68)Ge AC was compared with emission reconstructed with CT AC at any of the different tube currents. Only emission without any correction differed significantly from (68)Ge AC. For group 2, repeated measurements revealed a coefficient of variance ranging from 2% to 5% and from 2% to 6% at rest and at stress, respectively. For group 3, similar reproducibility coefficients (RC) for MBF were obtained when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with (68)Ge AC(IT) (RC = 0.218) and when CT AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.227). Even better reproducibility (lower RC) was found when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(FBP) (RC = 0.130) and when (68)Ge AC(IT) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.146). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for the assessment of qualitative and quantitative MBF with a hybrid PET/CT scanner, the use of CT AC (with a tube current of 10 mA) instead of (68)Ge AC provides accurate results.

Key concepts: Correction for attenuation, Nuclear medicine, Cardiac PET, Scanner, Perfusion, Repeatability, Medicine, Tomography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner. — Research Paper | ScholarLens