ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Comparison of protocols with respiratory-gated (4D) motion compensation in PET/CT: open-source package for quantification of phantom image quality.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient'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).
resultsThe 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[Formula: see text], RC[Formula: see text] and RC[Formula: see text]. Among retrospective protocols, 8 Phase protocol showed the best performance.
conclusionWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.