• Title of article

    Effect of PET Image Reconstruction Techniques on Unexpected Aorta Uptake

  • Author/Authors

    Hirji, Hassan Northwick Park Hospital - Department of Rheumatology - London, England , Sullivan, Keith University of Hertfordshire - London, England , Lasker, Imran Paul Strickland Scanner Centre - Mount Vernon Hospital - London, England , Nunes, Andre Paul Strickland Scanner Centre - Mount Vernon Hospital - London, England , Shepherd, Chris Paul Strickland Scanner Centre - Mount Vernon Hospital - London, England , Wong, Wai-lup Paul Strickland Scanner Centre - Mount Vernon Hospital - London, England , Sanghera, Bal Paul Strickland Scanner Centre - Mount Vernon Hospital - London, England , Sharif, Mhd S. University of East London - London, England

  • Pages
    7
  • From page
    1
  • To page
    7
  • Abstract
    To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis.Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUVmax) and background BP SUVmean. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBRmax) was defined by aorta SUVmax-to-BP SUVmean ratio for more analysis.Results: For aorta SUVmax with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUVmean were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBRmax these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUVmax (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUVmean (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBRmax (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02).Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUVmax or BP SUVmean or TBRmax was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials.
  • Keywords
    qualitative analysis , computed tomography , Positron emission tomography , blood pool , aorta quantitative
  • Journal title
    Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy
  • Serial Year
    2019
  • Record number

    2574837