Cargando…
Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients
BACKGROUNDS: Elastic motion correction in PET has been shown to increase image quality and quantitative measurements of PET datasets affected by respiratory motion. However, little is known on the impact of respiratory motion correction on clinical image evaluation in oncologic PET. This study evalu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9478021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36107357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-022-00926-7 |
_version_ | 1784790483532251136 |
---|---|
author | Noto, Benjamin Roll, Wolfgang Zinken, Laura Rischen, Robert Kerschke, Laura Evers, Georg Heindel, Walter Schäfers, Michael Büther, Florian |
author_facet | Noto, Benjamin Roll, Wolfgang Zinken, Laura Rischen, Robert Kerschke, Laura Evers, Georg Heindel, Walter Schäfers, Michael Büther, Florian |
author_sort | Noto, Benjamin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUNDS: Elastic motion correction in PET has been shown to increase image quality and quantitative measurements of PET datasets affected by respiratory motion. However, little is known on the impact of respiratory motion correction on clinical image evaluation in oncologic PET. This study evaluated the impact of motion correction on expert readers’ lymph node assessment of lung cancer patients. METHODS: Forty-three patients undergoing F-18-FDG PET/CT for the staging of suspected lung cancer were included. Three different PET reconstructions were investigated: non-motion-corrected (“static”), belt gating-based motion-corrected (“BG-MC”) and data-driven gating-based motion-corrected (“DDG-MC”). Assessment was conducted independently by two nuclear medicine specialists blinded to the reconstruction method on a six-point scale [Formula: see text] ranging from “certainly negative” (1) to “certainly positive” (6). Differences in [Formula: see text] between reconstruction methods, accounting for variation caused by readers, were assessed by nonparametric regression analysis of longitudinal data. From [Formula: see text], a dichotomous score for N1, N2, and N3 (“negative,” “positive”) and a subjective certainty score were derived. SUV and metabolic tumor volumes (MTV) were compared between reconstruction methods. RESULTS: BG-MC resulted in higher scores for N1 compared to static (p = 0.001), whereas DDG-MC resulted in higher scores for N2 compared to static (p = 0.016). Motion correction resulted in the migration of N1 from tumor free to metastatic on the dichotomized score, consensually for both readers, in 3/43 cases and in 2 cases for N2. SUV was significantly higher for motion-corrected PET, while MTV was significantly lower (all p < 0.003). No significant differences in the certainty scores were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PET motion correction resulted in significantly higher lymph node assessment scores of expert readers. Significant effects on quantitative PET parameters were seen; however, subjective reader certainty was not improved. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9478021 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94780212022-09-17 Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients Noto, Benjamin Roll, Wolfgang Zinken, Laura Rischen, Robert Kerschke, Laura Evers, Georg Heindel, Walter Schäfers, Michael Büther, Florian EJNMMI Res Original Research BACKGROUNDS: Elastic motion correction in PET has been shown to increase image quality and quantitative measurements of PET datasets affected by respiratory motion. However, little is known on the impact of respiratory motion correction on clinical image evaluation in oncologic PET. This study evaluated the impact of motion correction on expert readers’ lymph node assessment of lung cancer patients. METHODS: Forty-three patients undergoing F-18-FDG PET/CT for the staging of suspected lung cancer were included. Three different PET reconstructions were investigated: non-motion-corrected (“static”), belt gating-based motion-corrected (“BG-MC”) and data-driven gating-based motion-corrected (“DDG-MC”). Assessment was conducted independently by two nuclear medicine specialists blinded to the reconstruction method on a six-point scale [Formula: see text] ranging from “certainly negative” (1) to “certainly positive” (6). Differences in [Formula: see text] between reconstruction methods, accounting for variation caused by readers, were assessed by nonparametric regression analysis of longitudinal data. From [Formula: see text], a dichotomous score for N1, N2, and N3 (“negative,” “positive”) and a subjective certainty score were derived. SUV and metabolic tumor volumes (MTV) were compared between reconstruction methods. RESULTS: BG-MC resulted in higher scores for N1 compared to static (p = 0.001), whereas DDG-MC resulted in higher scores for N2 compared to static (p = 0.016). Motion correction resulted in the migration of N1 from tumor free to metastatic on the dichotomized score, consensually for both readers, in 3/43 cases and in 2 cases for N2. SUV was significantly higher for motion-corrected PET, while MTV was significantly lower (all p < 0.003). No significant differences in the certainty scores were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PET motion correction resulted in significantly higher lymph node assessment scores of expert readers. Significant effects on quantitative PET parameters were seen; however, subjective reader certainty was not improved. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9478021/ /pubmed/36107357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-022-00926-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Noto, Benjamin Roll, Wolfgang Zinken, Laura Rischen, Robert Kerschke, Laura Evers, Georg Heindel, Walter Schäfers, Michael Büther, Florian Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title | Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title_full | Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title_short | Respiratory motion correction in F-18-FDG PET/CT impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
title_sort | respiratory motion correction in f-18-fdg pet/ct impacts lymph node assessment in lung cancer patients |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9478021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36107357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-022-00926-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT notobenjamin respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT rollwolfgang respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT zinkenlaura respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT rischenrobert respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT kerschkelaura respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT eversgeorg respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT heindelwalter respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT schafersmichael respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients AT butherflorian respiratorymotioncorrectioninf18fdgpetctimpactslymphnodeassessmentinlungcancerpatients |