Download PDF
Der Nuklearmediziner 2018; 41(03): 202-210
DOI: 10.1055/a-0621-3171
PET Update 2018
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Von PET und PET/CT zur PET/MRT: Ein technologisches Update

From PET and PET/CT to PET/MRI: A Technological Update
Florian Büther
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Münster
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 September 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag beleuchtet die wichtigsten technologischen Neuerungen auf dem Gebiet der Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie (PET) der letzten Jahre. Sowohl auf Seiten der Hardware als auch im Bereich der eingesetzten Algorithmen sorgt der Fortschritt dafür, dass die PET-Bildgebung einer der grundlegenden Pfeiler der nuklearmedizinischen Diagnostik bleiben wird. Insbesondere neue Detektoren (Szintillatormaterialien, Lichtdetektoren, Elektronik) – nicht nur für die neue PET/MRT-Bildgebung, sondern auch für die konventionelle PET/CT-Bildgebung – als auch neue Rekonstruktions- und Korrekturmethoden (iterative sowie Flugzeit- und Punktspreizantwort-basierte Rekonstruktionen, Schwächungs- und Bewegungskorrektur) sind für diese Entwicklung verantwortlich. Besonders im Hinblick auf gesteigerte Sensitivitäten und räumliche Auflösung ergeben sich hiermit interessante Perspektiven sowohl für die Grundlagenforschung als auch für klinische Anwendungen.

Abstract

This contribution presents the most important technological improvements in the field of positron emission tomography (PET) during the last few years. Progress on both hardware as well as the applied algorithms lead to the fact that PET will remain one of the basic buttresses of diagnostic imaging in nuclear medicine. In particular, new detectors (scintillator materials, light detectors, electronics) – not just for the recently introduced PET/MR imaging but also for conventional PET/CT imaging – as well as novel reconstruction and correction methods (iterative, time-of-flight- and point-spread-function-based reconstructions, attenuation and motion correction) are responsible for this advancement. This leads to exciting perpectives specifically in terms of increased sensitivities and spatial resolution both for basic research tasks and clinical applications.

Schlüsselwörter

PET - PET/CT - PET/MRT - Detektoren - Korrekturen - Artefakte

Key words

PET - PET/CT - PET/MRT - detectors - corrections - artifacts
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Melcher CL. Scintillation Crystals for PET. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1051-1055
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Conti M, Eriksson L, Rothfuss H. et al. Characterization of 176Lu background in LSO-based PET scanners. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62: 3700-3711
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Conti M, Eriksson L, Hayden C. Monitoring energy calibration drift using the scintillator background radiation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2011; 58: 687-694
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lecoq P. Development of new scintillators for medical applications. Nucl Instr Meth Phys Res A 2016; 809: 130-139
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Luk WR, Digby WD, Jones WF. et al. An analysis of correction methods for emission contamination in PET postinjection transmission measurement. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1995; 42: 2303-2308
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T. et al. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998; 25: 2046-2053
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S. et al. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 922-927
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Visvikis D, Costa DC, Croasdale I. et al. CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantitative indices of [18F]FDG uptake in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 344-353
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Carney JP, Townsend DW, Rappoport V. et al. Method for transforming CT images for attenuation correction on PET/CT imaging. Med Phys 2006; 33: 976-983
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pichler BJ, Judenhofer MS, Catana C. et al. Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 639-647
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 1914-1922
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Yoon HS, Ko GB, Kwon SI. et al. Initial results of simultaneous PET/MRI experiments with an MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2013; 53: 608-614
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Sakata M. et al. Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT. Phys Med 2017; 42: 203-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Osborne DR, Acuff S, Cruise S. et al. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of continuous bed motion and traditional step and shoot PET/CT. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 5: 56-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Yamashita S, Yamamoto H, Nakaichi T. et al. Comparison of image quality between step-and-shoot and continuous bed motion techniques in whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the same acquisition duration. Ann Nucl Med 2017; 31: 686-695
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS. et al. Total-body imaging: Transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9: 381
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS. et al. Total-Body PET: Maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Zhang X, Zhou J, Cherry SR. et al. Quantitative image reconstruction for total-body PET imaging using the 2-meter long EXPLORER scanner. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62: 2465-2485
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Büther F. Corrections for Physical Factors. In: Dawood M, Jiang X, Schäfers K. , Eds. Correction Techniques in Emission Tomography. CRC Press; 2012: 67-103
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges. Imaging Med 2010; 2: 529-545
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994; 13: 601-609
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E. et al. Recent developlments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys 2016; 3: 3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C. et al. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006; 25: 907-921
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Lee YS, Kim JS, Kim KM. et al. Performance measurement of PSF modeling reconstruction (True X) on Siemens Biograph TruePoint TrueV PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2014; 28: 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G. et al. The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity. Ann Nucl Med 2016; 30: 97-103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Munk OL, Tolbod LP, Hansen SB. et al. Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys 2017; 4: 5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T. et al. Focal tracer uptake: A potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1339-1342
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Büther F, Stegger L, Dawood M. et al. Effective methods to correct contrast agent-induced errors in PET quantification in cardiac PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1060-1068
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C. et al. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology 2003; 226: 577-584
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Büther F, Schober O. Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/Computer Tomography (CT). In: Brahme A. , Ed. Comprehensive Biomedical Physics, Volume 1: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Elsevier; 2014: 157-180
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Alavi A. Advances in attenuation correction techniques in PET. PET Clinics 2007; 2: 191-217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T. et al. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 588-96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Goerres GW, Burger C, Kamel E. et al. Respiration-induced attenuation artifact at PET/CT: technical considerations. Radiology 2003; 226: 906-910
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Le Meunier L, Maass-Moreno R, Carrasquillo JA. et al. PET/CT imaging: Effect of respiratory motion on apparent myocardial uptake. J Nucl Card 2006; 13: 821-830
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Chi PC, Mawlawi O, Luo D. et al. Effects of respiration-averaged computed tomography on positron emission tomography/computed tomography quantification and its potential impact on gross tumor volume delineation. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 2008; 71: 890-899
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Eiber M, Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M. et al. Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 1691-1701
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F. et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 1392-1399
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Keereman V, Fierens Y, Broux T. et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI using ultrashort echo time sequences. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 812-818
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Rezaei A, Defrise M, Bal G. et al. Simultaneous reconstruction of activity and attenuation in time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012; 31: 2224-2233
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Ling EE. et al. Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. Med Phys 2002; 29: 366-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Boucher L, Rodrigue S, Lecomte R. et al. Respiratory gating for 3-dimensional PET of the thorax: Feasibility and initial results. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 214-219
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Büther F, Dawood M, Stegger L. et al. List mode-driven cardiac and respiratory gating in PET. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 674-681
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Büther F, Vehren T, Schäfers KP. et al. Impact of data-driven respiratory gating in clinical PET. Radiology 2016; 281: 229-238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Dawood M, Büther F, Jiang X. et al. Respiratory motion correction in 3-D PET data with advanced optical flow algorithms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008; 27: 1164-1175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Fürst S, Grimm R, Hong I. et al. Motion correction strategies for integrated PET/MR. J Nucl Med 2015; 56: 261-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar