PET Imaging Stability Measurements During Simultaneous Pulsing of Aggressive MR Sequences on the SIGNA PET/MR System

The recent introduction of simultaneous whole-body PET/MR scanners has enabled new research taking advantage of the complementary information obtainable with PET and MRI. One such application is kinetic modeling, which requires high levels of PET quantitative stability. To accomplish the required PET stability levels, the PET subsystem must be sufficiently isolated from the effects of MR activity. Performance measurements have previously been published, demonstrating sufficient PET stability in the presence of MR pulsing for typical clinical use; however, PET stability during radiofrequency (RF)-intensive and gradient-intensive sequences has not previously been evaluated for a clinical whole-body scanner. In this work, PET stability of the GE SIGNA PET/MR was examined during simultaneous scanning of aggressive MR pulse sequences. Methods: PET performance tests were acquired with MR idle and during simultaneous MR pulsing. Recent system improvements mitigating RF interference and gain variation were used. A fast recovery fast spin echo MR sequence was selected for high RF power, and an echo planar imaging sequence was selected for its high heat-inducing gradients. Measurements were performed to determine PET stability under varying MR conditions using the following metrics: sensitivity, scatter fraction, contrast recovery, uniformity, count rate performance, and image quantitation. A final PET quantitative stability assessment for simultaneous PET scanning during functional MRI studies was performed with a spiral in-and-out gradient echo sequence. Results: Quantitation stability of a 68Ge flood phantom was demonstrated within 0.34%. Normalized sensitivity was stable during simultaneous scanning within 0.3%. Scatter fraction measured with a 68Ge line source in the scatter phantom was stable within the range of 40.4%–40.6%. Contrast recovery and uniformity were comparable for PET images acquired simultaneously with multiple MR conditions. Peak noise equivalent count rate was 224 kcps at an effective activity concentration of 18.6 kBq/mL, and the count rate curves and scatter fraction curve were consistent for the alternating MR pulsing states. A final test demonstrated quantitative stability during a spiral functional MRI sequence. Conclusion: PET stability metrics demonstrated that PET quantitation was not affected during simultaneous aggressive MRI. This stability enables demanding applications such as kinetic modeling.

[1]  Ciprian Catana,et al.  Neurovascular coupling to D2/D3 dopamine receptor occupancy using simultaneous PET/functional MRI , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  R. Boellaard Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: A NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. , 2015, Medical physics.

[4]  G. Delso,et al.  Performance Measurements of the Siemens mMR Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Scanner , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Alexander M. Grant,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. , 2016, Medical physics.

[6]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  M. Iatrou,et al.  Fully 3D PET Iterative Reconstruction Using Distance-Driven Projectors and Native Scanner Geometry , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[9]  Gaspar Delso,et al.  Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Paul K Marsden,et al.  PET-MRI: a review of challenges and solutions in the development of integrated multimodality imaging , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Thomas A. Hope,et al.  PET/MRI: Where might it replace PET/CT? , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  Bruce R. Rosen,et al.  A receptor-based model for dopamine-induced fMRI signal , 2013, NeuroImage.

[13]  Catie Chang,et al.  Variable‐density spiral‐in/out functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  O. Schober,et al.  List Mode–Driven Cardiac and Respiratory Gating in PET , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  G. Glover,et al.  MR Performance Comparison of a PET/MR System Before and After SiPM-Based Time-of-Flight PET Detector Insertion , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[16]  Steven G. Ross,et al.  Application and Evaluation of a Measured Spatially Variant System Model for PET Image Reconstruction , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  G. Delso,et al.  PET/MRI system design , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  P. Christian,et al.  Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.