Comparison of protocols with respiratory-gated (4D) motion compensation in PET/CT: open-source package for quantification of phantom image quality

• Published in: EJNMMI physics 2022-11, Vol.9 (1), p.80-80, Article 80
• Main Authors: Martinez-Movilla, Andrea, Mix, Michael, Torres-Espallardo, Irene, Teijeiro, Elena, Bello, Pilar, Baltas, Dimos, Martí-Bonmatí, Luis, Carles, Montserrat
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Applied and Technical Physics; Computational Mathematics and Numerical Analysis; Computed tomography; Electron density; Emission analysis; Engineering; Experimental phantoms; Gated 4D PET/CT; Image acquisition; Image quality; Imaging; Inserts; Mathematical analysis; Medical imaging; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Motion compensation; Movement; Nuclear Medicine; Open-source package; Original Research; Positron emission; Protocol; Quality assurance; Radiology; Spatial resolution; Tomography
• ISSN: 2197-7364; 2197-7364
• DOI: 10.1186/s40658-022-00509-4

Background Patient’s breathing affects the quality of chest images acquired with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) studies. Movement correction is required to optimize PET quantification in clinical settings. We present a reproducible methodology to compare the impact of different movement compensation protocols on PET image quality. Static phantom images were set as reference values, and recovery coefficients (RCs) were calculated from motion compensated images for the phantoms in respiratory movement. Image quality was evaluated in terms of: (1) volume accuracy (VA) with the NEMA phantom; (2) concentration accuracy (CA) by six refillable inserts within the electron density CIRS phantom; and (3) spatial resolution (R) with the Jaszczak phantom. Three different respiratory patterns were applied to the phantoms. We developed an open-source package to automatically analyze VA, CA and R. We compared 10 different movement compensation protocols available in the Philips Gemini TF-64 PET/CT (4-, 6-, 8- and 10-time bins, 20%-, 30%-, 40%-window width in Inhale and Exhale). Results The homemade package provided RC values for VA, CA and R of 102 PET images in less than 5 min. Results of the comparison of the 10 different protocols demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed method for quantifying the variations observed qualitatively. Overall, prospective protocols showed better motion compensation than retrospective. The best performance was obtained for the protocol Exhale 30% (0.3 s after maximum Exhale position and window width of 30%) with RC VA = 1.6 ± 1.3 , RC CA = 0.90 ± 0.09 and RC R = 0.6 ± 0.4 . Among retrospective protocols, 8 Phase protocol showed the best performance. Conclusion We provided an open-source package able to automatically evaluate the impact of motion compensation methods on PET image quality. A setup based on commonly available experimental phantoms is recommended. Its application for the comparison of 10 time-based approaches showed that Exhale 30% protocol had the best performance. The proposed framework is not specific to the phantoms and protocols presented on this study.