Cargando…

Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT

OBJECTIVES: To compare two scanning protocols (free breathing versus breath-hold) for perfusion imaging using dynamic volume computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate their effects on image registration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent dynamic volume CT for pancreatic perfusion analysi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kandel, Sonja, Meyer, Henning, Hein, Patrik, Lembcke, Alexander, Rueckert, Jens-C., Rogalla, Patrik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0169-9
_version_ 1782247685685772288
author Kandel, Sonja
Meyer, Henning
Hein, Patrik
Lembcke, Alexander
Rueckert, Jens-C.
Rogalla, Patrik
author_facet Kandel, Sonja
Meyer, Henning
Hein, Patrik
Lembcke, Alexander
Rueckert, Jens-C.
Rogalla, Patrik
author_sort Kandel, Sonja
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare two scanning protocols (free breathing versus breath-hold) for perfusion imaging using dynamic volume computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate their effects on image registration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent dynamic volume CT for pancreatic perfusion analysis and were randomly assigned to either a shallow-breathing (I) or breath-hold (II) group. Both dynamic CT protocols consisted of 17 low-dose volumetric scans. Rigid image registration was performed by using the volume with highest aortic attenuation as reference. All other volumes were visually matched with the pancreatic lesion serving as the volumetric region of interest. The overall demand for post-processing per patient was calculated as the median of three-dimensional vector lengths of all volumes in relation to the relative patient origin. The number of volumes not requiring registration was recorded per group. RESULTS: Registration mismatch for groups I and II was 2.61 mm (SD, 1.57) and 4.95 mm (SD, 2.71), respectively (P < 0.005). Twenty-eight volumes in group I (8.2%) and 47 volumes in group II (14.1%) did not require manual registration (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Shallow breathing during dynamic volume CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction and thus may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas MAIN MESSAGES: • Shallow breathing during perfusion CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction. • Shallow breathing may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas. • Image registration is crucial for CT perfusion imaging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3481081
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34810812012-12-06 Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT Kandel, Sonja Meyer, Henning Hein, Patrik Lembcke, Alexander Rueckert, Jens-C. Rogalla, Patrik Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: To compare two scanning protocols (free breathing versus breath-hold) for perfusion imaging using dynamic volume computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate their effects on image registration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent dynamic volume CT for pancreatic perfusion analysis and were randomly assigned to either a shallow-breathing (I) or breath-hold (II) group. Both dynamic CT protocols consisted of 17 low-dose volumetric scans. Rigid image registration was performed by using the volume with highest aortic attenuation as reference. All other volumes were visually matched with the pancreatic lesion serving as the volumetric region of interest. The overall demand for post-processing per patient was calculated as the median of three-dimensional vector lengths of all volumes in relation to the relative patient origin. The number of volumes not requiring registration was recorded per group. RESULTS: Registration mismatch for groups I and II was 2.61 mm (SD, 1.57) and 4.95 mm (SD, 2.71), respectively (P < 0.005). Twenty-eight volumes in group I (8.2%) and 47 volumes in group II (14.1%) did not require manual registration (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Shallow breathing during dynamic volume CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction and thus may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas MAIN MESSAGES: • Shallow breathing during perfusion CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction. • Shallow breathing may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas. • Image registration is crucial for CT perfusion imaging. Springer-Verlag 2012-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3481081/ /pubmed/22695948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0169-9 Text en © European Society of Radiology 2012
spellingShingle Original Article
Kandel, Sonja
Meyer, Henning
Hein, Patrik
Lembcke, Alexander
Rueckert, Jens-C.
Rogalla, Patrik
Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title_full Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title_fullStr Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title_short Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT
title_sort comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume ct
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0169-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kandelsonja comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect
AT meyerhenning comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect
AT heinpatrik comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect
AT lembckealexander comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect
AT rueckertjensc comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect
AT rogallapatrik comparisonoffreebreathingversusbreathholdinperfusionimagingusingdynamicvolumect