Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28817656›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Investigation of the halo-artifact in 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI.

Thorsten Heußer, Philipp Mann, Christopher M Rank, Martin Schäfer, Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Boris A Hadaschik, Klaus Kopka, Peter Bachert, Marc Kachelrieß and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. An intra-patient contemporaneous comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Trial
  3. Safety, Biodistribution, and Radiation Dosimetry ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Optimizing Attenuation Correction inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Differential privacy preserved federated transfer learning for multi-institutionalEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Prospective intra-individual blinded comparison of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Thorsten HeußerMedical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp MannApplied Medical Radiation Physics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Christopher M RankMedical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin SchäferDivison of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-StraussClinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Boris A HadaschikDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany.
Klaus KopkaDivison of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter BachertMedical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Marc KachelrießMedical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin T FreitagDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2116-6873

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCombined positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) with a 68Ga-labelled PSMA-analog (68Ga-PSMA-11) is discussed as a promising diagnostic method for patients with suspicion or history of prostate cancer. One potential drawback of this method are severe photopenic (halo-) artifacts surrounding the bladder and the kidneys in the scatter-corrected PET images, which have been reported to occur frequently in clinical practice. The goal of this work was to investigate the occurrence and impact of these artifacts and, secondly, to evaluate variants of the standard scatter correction method with regard to halo-artifact suppression.

methodsExperiments using a dedicated pelvis phantom were conducted to investigate whether the halo-artifact is modality-, tracer-, and/or concentration-dependent. Furthermore, 31 patients with history of prostate cancer were selected from an ongoing 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI study. For each patient, PET raw data were reconstructed employing six different variants of PET scatter correction: absolute scatter scaling, relative scatter scaling, and relative scatter scaling combined with prompt gamma correction, each of which was combined with a maximum scatter fraction (MaxSF) of MaxSF = 75% or MaxSF = 40%. Evaluation of the reconstructed images with regard to halo-artifact suppression was performed both quantitatively using statistical analysis and qualitatively by two independent readers.

resultsThe phantom experiments did not reveal any modality-dependency (PET/MRI vs. PET/CT) or tracer-dependency (68Ga vs. 18F-FDG). Patient- and phantom-based data indicated that halo-artifacts derive from high organ-to-background activity ratios (OBR) between bladder/kidneys and surrounding soft tissue, with a positive correlation between OBR and halo size. Comparing different variants of scatter correction, reducing the maximum scatter fraction from the default value MaxSF = 75% to MaxSF = 40% was found to efficiently suppress halo-artifacts in both phantom and patient data. In 1 of 31 patients, reducing the maximum scatter fraction provided new PET-based information changing the patient's diagnosis.

conclusionHalo-artifacts are particularly observed for 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI due to 1) the biodistribution of the PSMA-11-tracer resulting in large OBRs for bladder and kidneys and 2) inaccurate scatter correction methods currently used in clinical routine, which tend to overestimate the scatter contribution. If not compensated for, 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake pathologies may be masked by halo-artifacts leading to false-negative diagnoses. Reducing the maximum scatter fraction was found to efficiently suppress halo-artifacts.

Indexed as

ArtifactsMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyGaliumHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID28817656
PMCPMC5560715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.