Original Research
Nuclear Medicine
May 2006

Truncation Artifact on PET/CT: Impact on Measurements of Activity Concentration and Assessment of a Correction Algorithm

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Discrepancy between fields of view (FOVs) in a PET/CT scanner causes a truncation artifact when imaging extends beyond the CT FOV. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the impact of this artifact on measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentrations and to assess a truncation correction algorithm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two phantoms and five patients were used in this study. In the first phantom, three inserts (water, air, bone equivalent) were placed in a water-filled cylinder containing 18F-FDG. In the second phantom study, a chest phantom and a 2-L bottle fitted with a bone insert were used to simulate a patient's torso and arm. Both phantoms were imaged while positioned centrally (baseline) and at the edge of the CT FOV to induce truncation. PET images were reconstructed using attenuation maps from truncated and truncation-corrected CT images. Regions of interest (ROIs) drawn on the inserts, simulated arm, and background water of the baseline truncated and truncation-corrected PET images were compared. In addition, extremity malignancies of five patients truncated on CT images were reconstructed with and without correction and the maximum standard uptake values (SUVs) of the malignancies were compared.
RESULTS. Truncation artifact manifests as a rim of high activity concentration at the edge of the truncated CT image with an adjacent low-concentration region peripherally. The correction algorithm minimizes these effects. Phantom studies showed a maximum variation of -5.4% in the truncation-corrected background water image compared with the baseline image. Activity concentration in the water insert was 6.3% higher while that of air and bone inserts was similar to baseline. Extremity malignancies showed a consistent increase in the maximum SUV after truncation correction.
CONCLUSION. Truncation affects measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentrations in PET/CT. A truncation-correction algorithm corrects truncation artifacts with small residual error.

Introduction

PET is increasingly being used in oncology patients to stage the primary malignancy, assess therapeutic response and prognosis, and detect recurrence [1-7]. More recently, integrated PET/CT has been used to evaluate oncology patients [2, 8-10]. A major advantage of integrated PET/CT over dedicated PET is that it allows the use of CT for attenuation correction [11] and for anatomic localization [12]. Directly combining functional and morphologic information has been shown to improve the accuracy and efficiency of PET [13]. However, the use of CT for attenuation correction of PET images has introduced artifacts that can affect the interpretation of the PET scan. In this regard, a truncation artifact can occur when the acquisition field of view (FOV) of the CT data is smaller than the PET FOV.
Current commercially available PET/CT scanners have a CT FOV of 45-50 cm whereas that of PET scanners is 60-70 cm. When large patients undergo imaging, the small CT FOV causes some CT projection views to be truncated, and this manifests on the CT image as a rim of high-attenuation values combined with characteristic streaking (Fig. 1A). Furthermore, the discrepancy between the two FOVs causes some sections of the PET emission data not to have any corresponding attenuation-correction factors. The net result of this artifact is an overestimation of the activity concentration corresponding to the image rim and an underestimation corresponding to the region without attenuation-correction factors (Fig. 1B).
Several techniques have been proposed to correct for this truncation artifact [14-17]. One of the proposed techniques is that the missing data can be estimated by extrapolation of the missing detector data using the fact that the total attenuation of the slice should be the same in all parallel beam projections [14, 17]. In this article, we evaluate how truncation affects measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentrations in PET/CT and the impact of a new truncation-correction algorithm, as implemented on the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner (GE Healthcare), on the measurement of standard uptake values (SUVs) using two phantoms and five patient studies.
Fig. 1A —48-year-old man with lymphoma. CT image with truncation of arms (A) and CT attenuation-corrected PET scan (B) show truncation artifact. Truncation artifact causes rim of high attenuation values at edge of CT field of view (FOV), leaving objects beyond edge with no attenuation. These artifacts result in overestimation of 18F-FDG activity concentration in rim region (arrows, B) and underestimation in regions beyond edge (asterisks, B) of CT FOV. Note marked uptake of 18F-FDG in chest wall mass (M).
Fig. 1B —48-year-old man with lymphoma. CT image with truncation of arms (A) and CT attenuation-corrected PET scan (B) show truncation artifact. Truncation artifact causes rim of high attenuation values at edge of CT field of view (FOV), leaving objects beyond edge with no attenuation. These artifacts result in overestimation of 18F-FDG activity concentration in rim region (arrows, B) and underestimation in regions beyond edge (asterisks, B) of CT FOV. Note marked uptake of 18F-FDG in chest wall mass (M).
Fig. 2A —Phantom 1. CT image of cylindric phantom with inserts positioned centrally in scanner field of view (FOV).
Fig. 2B —Phantom 1. and C, CT (left) and PET (right) images show phantom positioned at edge of FOV to cause truncation in three inserts before correction (B) and after correction (C).
Fig. 2C —Phantom 1. CT (left) and PET (right) images show phantom positioned at edge of FOV to cause truncation in three inserts before correction (B) and after correction (C).
Fig. 2D —Phantom 1. Placement of regions of interest (roi) for quantitative evaluation of correction algorithm is shown.
Fig. 3A —Phantom 2. CT image of RSD-Alderson chest phantom with simulated arm (asterisk) while positioned centrally in scanner field of view (FOV).
Fig. 3B —Phantom 2. and C, CT (left) and PET (right) images of same phantom positioned at edge of FOV to cause truncation in simulated arm (asterisk) before (B) and after (C) truncation correction.
Fig. 3C —Phantom 2. CT (left) and PET (right) images of same phantom positioned at edge of FOV to cause truncation in simulated arm (asterisk) before (B) and after (C) truncation correction.
Fig. 3D —Phantom 2. Images show placement of regions of interest (circles) on background water and bone insert for quantitative evaluation before (top) and after (bottom) truncation correction.

Materials and Methods

Integrated PET/CT Scanner

Data acquisition for this study was performed on a Discovery ST Integrated PET/CT scanner. The CT component of this scanner has a 50-cm transaxial FOV and can acquire 8 slices per X-ray tube rotation. The CT slice thickness can range from 1.25 to 10 mm. The X-ray tube current can be varied between 10 and 440 mA, and the peak tube voltage setting can be 80, 100, 120, or 140 kVp. The table feed rate of the CT scanner ranges from 1.25 to 30 mm per 360° rotation of the X-ray tube. The minimum and maximum scanning times per gantry rotation are 0.5 and 4 sec, respectively, with highest in-plane spatial resolution of 0.32 mm.
The PET component of the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner is composed of 24 rings of bismuth-germanate (BGO) detectors. The dimensions of each detector element are 6.3 × 6.3 × 30 mm in the tangential, axial, and radial directions, respectively. The scanner has a transaxial FOV of 70 cm and an axial FOV of 15.7 cm. The scanner is also capable of acquiring data in 2D and in 3D modes by retracting tungsten septa (54 mm long and 0.8 mm thick) from the FOV. The performance characterization of this scanner has been described elsewhere [18].

Phantom Studies

Two phantom studies were conducted. In the first study, a cylindric phantom (depth = 20 cm, length = 20 cm) fitted with three inserts (water, air, and bone equivalent) was filled with water having an activity concentration of 3.2 kBq/mL of 18F-FDG. The water and air inserts were 4.3 cm in diameter, and the bone equivalent insert was 2.5 cm in diameter. The water insert was filled with water at an 18F-FDG activity concentration of 7.8 kBq/mL giving an insert-to-background ratio of 2.4:1. The three inserts were positioned in the cylindric phantom around the circumference of a 12.5-cm-diameter circle. The phantom was then placed centrally in the FOV of the scanner and a CT scan (Fig. 2A), followed by a PET scan, was acquired. This acquisition was then repeated with the phantom placed at the edge of the CT FOV in such a way as to cause truncation along the center of the three inserts (Fig. 2B). The CT data of the second acquisition were then processed with and without the new truncation-correction algorithm. The two resulting CT image sets were then used to generate two attenuation maps to correct the corresponding PET emission data.
In the second study, a thorax phantom (Alderson, Radiology Support Devices) and a 2-L cylindric plastic bottle fitted with a bone insert were used to simulate a patient's torso and arm (Fig. 3A). The phantom and plastic bottle were filled with 18F-FDG and water having activity concentrations of 11.5 and 7.4 kBq/mL, respectively. The phantom was then placed centrally inside the FOV of the scanner, and a CT scan and then a PET scan were acquired. The phantom was then repositioned in a way to cause truncation in the simulated arm along the bone insert (Fig. 3B), and a second CT and PET acquisition was performed. The CT data of the second acquisition were processed in a similar manner to that in the first phantom study, thus generating two attenuation maps to correct the corresponding PET emission data.
The phantom designs that were used in both studies were selected to evaluate whether the algorithm can correct truncated tissues of different densities (phantom 1: air, water, bone) and geometries that mimic a real clinical setting (phantom 2: chest with simulated arm). In both phantom studies, the central positioning of the phantom in the FOV on the scanner will be referred to from here onward as the “baseline scan” because it represents the acquired data without truncation artifacts. The CT acquisition parameters of all phantom studies were as follows: 120 kVp, 180 mAs, helical mode, and a pitch of 1.35 with a detector configuration of 8 × 1.25 mm. Images were then reconstructed using a soft filter with a slice thickness of 3.75 mm. The PET emission data were acquired for 3 min in the 2D mode and were corrected for attenuation using the CT images. PET image reconstruction was performed using the weighted least-squares ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) iterative techniques [19] with two iterations and 30 subsets using a post filter and a loop filter of 6 and 5.47 mm, respectively.
To evaluate the impact of the truncation-correction algorithm on quantitative measurements, several regions of interest (ROIs) of 1.5 cm in diameter were drawn on the two different attenuation-corrected PET image sets of both phantom studies and their corresponding baseline scans. The ROIs were drawn in the three inserts and background water of the first phantom study and the background water and bone insert of the simulated arm in the second phantom study. The mean and SD of the activity concentration in all these ROI measurements were then recorded, and the percentage error between the baseline and truncation-corrected images was calculated.

Patient Studies

In addition to the phantom experiments, integrated PET/CT scans of five patients that exhibited a truncation artifact were also evaluated. Permission to perform this study was obtained through the institutional retrospective chart review process, according to the ethics requirement of our institution. Two of the patients had melanoma and lymphoma and, according to standard institutional protocol, were imaged with their arms adjacent to their bodies. Both of these patients had a forearm lesion that was truncated. The third patient had a mid thigh osteosarcoma. Because the patient could not straighten his leg, the tumor was truncated in the CT image. The remaining two patients were large and extended beyond the 50-cm CT FOV of the Discovery ST Integrated PET/CT scanner.
The CT scans of all five patients were processed with and without the truncation-correction algorithm, and the resulting CT attenuation maps were used to correct the emission PET data. ROIs were then drawn in the lesion or truncated area on the truncation-corrected and uncorrected PET attenuation-corrected images, and the maximum SUVs of the lesions were evaluated.
All patients had fasted for 4 hr before injection of approximately 555 MBq of 18F-FDG. Patients were scanned 75 ± 10 min (mean ± SD) after injection. All PET data were acquired in the 2D mode with 3 min for each bed position and were reconstructed using the same parameters as those used for the phantom studies.

Truncation-Correction Algorithm

The method for extending the CT reconstruction FOV has been described by Hsieh et al. [14]. Briefly, the method extends the truncated projections by relying on the fact that the total attenuation of each ideal projection remains constant over all views. By comparing the total measured attenuation in each view, the truncated projections can be identified and the amount of truncation can be quantified. The truncated projection can then be corrected by assuming that the missing attenuation is made of a partial cylindric water object that is fitted to match the slope and intercept of the measured attenuation values at the edge of the detector.
Consider a projection view p(i, k), where i is the distance from the isocenter and k is the projection angle. The projection sum function ξ(k) is then obtained by
\[ \[{\xi}(k)={{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}}p(i,k)\] \]
A projection is considered to be truncated if ξ(k) is less than a preset percentage of the maximum attenuation, ξm. The value of ξm is determined by averaging projections that do not exhibit truncation that are identified by determining if the boundary samples of these projections are constrained to a predetermined threshold (rather than zero to account for nonideal calibration). The missing attenuation is then equal to:
\[ \[{\lambda}(k)={\xi}_{m}-{\xi}(k),\] \]
λ(k) is then modeled as two partial cylindric water objects fitted to match the slope and intercept at both ends of the truncated projection ξ(k). The total area of the added cylinders for the k-th projection is given by η(k):
\[ \[{\eta}(k)=\frac{{\pi}}{2}R_{1}^{2}(k)-\frac{x_{1}(k)p_{1}(k)}{2}-R_{1}^{2}(k)arcsin\left(\frac{x_{1}(k)}{R_{1}(k)}\right)+\frac{{\pi}}{2}R_{r}^{2}(k)-\frac{x_{r}(k)p_{r}(k)}{2}-R_{r}^{2}(k)arcsin\left(\frac{x_{r}(k)}{R_{r}(k)}\right)\] \]
where pl and pr are the magnitude of the left and right intercepts, respectively, and xl, Rl, xr, and Rr are the location and radius of the left and right fitted cylinders.
Ideally the ratio ϵ(k) = η(kw / λ(k), where μw is the attenuation coefficient of water, should be equal to unity. If ϵ(k) ≠ 1, then additional adjustments to the estimated missing projections are performed [14].
Although the extended region of the projection does not contain any fine structure, this information is supplied by other views that pass through the region, and the reconstructed image can reveal anatomic detail in the extended FOV. These extended reconstructions are then used to create attenuation maps for correction of the PET emission activity.

Results

Truncation artifacts appear in PET images as a rim of high activity concentration due to the elevated CT pixel intensity at the edge of the truncated CT image, and an adjacent region of low activity concentration due to attenuation losses beyond the edge of the CT FOV. ROI measurements of 18F-FDG activity concentration on the truncated PET images confirmed visual assessment, showing increased activity concentration in the rim region and decreased activity concentration peripherally. The truncation-correction algorithm minimizes these effects and restores the shape of the imaged object. Both truncation-corrected phantom studies showed a maximum variation of 5.4% in the truncation-corrected background water when compared with baseline. Activity concentration in the water insert was higher by 6.3%, whereas that of the air and bone inserts was similar to baseline. The ROI measurements before and after correction are shown in Table 1. The percentage error between the corrected and the baseline measurements is also shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Region-of-Interest (ROI) Values for Phantom Studies
Mean (SD) ROI Values (Bq/mL)
InsertBaselineTruncatedTruncation-CorrectedError (%)
Phantom 1    
   Background water3,150 (302)486 (141)3,321 (316)–5.4
   Air241 (27)1,162 (559)263 (35)–9.1
   Bone537 (283)27 (61)550 (300)–2.4
   Water7,634 (586)3,633 (1,784)7,155 (527)6.3
Phantom 2    
   Background water5,825 (552)2,022 (1,323)5,927 (451)–1.8
   Bone
1,697 (381)
646 (508)
1,762 (376)
–3.8
Analysis of the patient data sets showed a consistent increase in maximum SUV after truncation correction for malignancies and normal tissue located in the truncated regions (Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B and Table 2). In the three patients with peripherally located malignancies, six measurements of maximum SUVs after truncation correction showed an increase of 43-520% (average, 279%). In the two patients with truncation artifact involving the extremities and normal tissues in these regions, measurements of the maximum SUVs of the soft tissues after truncation correction showed an increase of 147% and 98%, respectively.
TABLE 2: Region-of-Interest (ROI) Values of Patients' Lesions Before and After Truncation Correction
SUVmax of Lesions
Location of LesionTruncatedTruncation-Corrected% Difference
Patient 1   
   Right extremity3.256.0586
   Left extremity (1)2.513.5943
   Left extremity (2)1.287.94520
Patient 2   
   Left extremity (3)1.317.13444
   Left extremity (4)2.7411.12306
Patient 3   
   Left thigh3.3712.74278
Patient 4   
   Left arm soft tissue0.320.79147
Patient 5   
   Right arm soft tissue
0.45
0.89
98
Note–SUVmax = maximum standard uptake value.

Discussion

Integrated PET/CT improves lesion localization and the accuracy of tumor staging when compared with PET and CT performed independently [8-10]. However, dual-technique PET/CT has also introduced artifacts that can affect the interpretation of the PET scan [12, 20-22]. These artifacts are mainly due to the use of CT rather than a transmission source for the attenuation correction of PET images. One of these artifacts is truncation; this artifact is seen more frequently in large patients or when patients are imaged with their arms at their sides and is due to the difference in the size of the data acquisition FOV of the CT and PET scanners.
Current commercially available integrated PET/CT scanners have a CT FOV of 45-50 cm, whereas that of PET is 60-70 cm. When imaging large patients, the small CT FOV causes some CT projection views to be truncated and this can manifest on the CT image as a rim of high attenuation values combined with characteristic streaking. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the two FOVs results in the absence of attenuation-correction factors in some sections of the PET emission data. The net result of this artifact is an overestimation of the activity concentration corresponding to the image rim and an underestimation corresponding to the region without attenuation-correction factors.
Several techniques have been proposed to correct for the truncation artifact [14-17]. In this study, we evaluated the CT truncation-correction algorithm that was developed and characterized by Hsieh et al. [14] and implemented by GE Healthcare on the Discovery ST Integrated PET/CT scanner to study its impact on SUV measurements using phantom and patient data. The correction technique extends the CT FOV based on information obtained from nontruncated projections of the object and the knowledge that the total attenuation of an object should be the same independent of the projection angle. It is also important to note that the correction algorithm is not dependent on the extent of truncation, as was shown by Hsieh et al. [14].
Both of our phantom studies showed that after correction the activity concentration in the water insert was 97% higher than those measurements without any correction. Furthermore, the patient data obtained using the correction algorithm showed that the SUV measurements corresponding to the truncated regions increased as would be expected. In some cases, this increase was as high as 278% and would significantly have affected interpretation regarding treatment response and could potentially have had a major impact on the patient's clinical management.
The effect of the truncation artifact on SUV measurements and the changes that occur when a correction algorithm is used can potentially have significant clinical ramifications. In this regard, besides being used for the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of a wide range of tumors, 18F-FDG PET is being increasingly used clinically to determine the response to therapy and to predict prognosis. This assessment requires an objective measurement of 18F-FDG uptake in the tumor, and SUV measurements are the most commonly used parameter to quantify this uptake. Because these measurements can have a major impact on the clinical management of oncology patients, their accuracy and reproducibility are important. However, in malignancies with a propensity to be located peripherally, such as soft-tissue sarcomas, melanomas, and osteosarcomas, detection of locoregional metastases and accurate determination of SUV measurements can be compromised by the presence of the truncation artifact associated with integrated PET/CT. Fortunately, correction of SUV measurements for tumors located in a truncated region improves the accuracy of these measurements. Consequently, knowledge and recognition of this artifact are important so that the correction algorithm can be applied to prevent misinterpretation and inappropriate assessment of tumor grade, staging, and response to therapy.
Although our results show an improvement in the semiquantitative SUV measurements in the truncated region, a close evaluation of the CT images shows that the shape of the truncated object is not fully recovered. This is mainly due to an error in the estimation of the boundary of the truncated projection. The correction algorithm estimates the missing attenuation in a projection based on the difference between the maximum attenuation and the projection under consideration. This difference is then modeled as a partial water cylinder with an area equivalent to the missing region. The only information available for the fitting process is the intercept and the slope at the truncated edge of the projection. No information about the natural boundary of the projection is available. Such information is important for more accurate fitting of the missing attenuation. An extension of the current truncation-correction technique, which is currently under investigation, is to provide the missing boundary information from the nonattenuated corrected PET data. It is well known that reconstruction of the emission PET data without attenuation correction results in an enhancement of the boundaries of the patient's body. This information could then be incorporated during the fitting process of the partial water cylinder to more accurately define the distal boundary of the missing attenuation in a truncated projection.
Fig. 4A —55-year-old man with history of metastatic melanoma. Reprinted from [23]. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Metastasis (arrow) in upper right extremity is located in truncated region of CT image. Before truncation correction, maximum standard uptake value (SUV) measurement in 1.5-cm region of interest drawn on metastasis was 3.25, and after truncation correction maximum, SUV was 6.05—a difference of 86%.
Fig. 4B —55-year-old man with history of metastatic melanoma. Reprinted from [23]. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Metastasis (arrow) in upper right extremity is located in truncated region of CT image. Before truncation correction, maximum standard uptake value (SUV) measurement in 1.5-cm region of interest drawn on metastasis was 3.25, and after truncation correction maximum, SUV was 6.05—a difference of 86%.
Fig. 5A —64-year-old man with history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Before truncation correction, four measurements of 18F-FDG-avid tumor (within ellipse, A) had maximum standard uptake value (SUV) range of 1.3-2.8 (2.51, 1.28, 1.31, 2.74). After truncation correction, maximum SUV range (within ellipse, B) was 3.6-11.1 (3.59, 7.94, 7.13, 11.12)—an average difference of 328%.
Fig. 5B —64-year-old man with history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Before truncation correction, four measurements of 18F-FDG-avid tumor (within ellipse, A) had maximum standard uptake value (SUV) range of 1.3-2.8 (2.51, 1.28, 1.31, 2.74). After truncation correction, maximum SUV range (within ellipse, B) was 3.6-11.1 (3.59, 7.94, 7.13, 11.12)—an average difference of 328%.
Other limitations of the algorithm that will cause the correction technique to fail occur whenever all projection views are truncated, such as in the case of a large patient who has been malpositioned in the FOV of the scanner. In this case, the algorithm cannot estimate the maximum attenuation of the object and hence fails to extend the truncated projection accurately. Another limitation occurs whenever the truncated portion of the object cannot be modeled as a smooth rolloff, which is a characteristic of a water phantom. This situation occurs when there is a discontinuity between the patient and the truncated object, such as scanning patients who do not put their arms close to their body. If the truncation occurs within the patient's body boundary, then the smooth water phantom cannot appropriately model the air gap between the patient and the arms. In this case, a modification of the reconstruction algorithm that is based on iterative reconstruction techniques combined with information about the shape of the truncated object obtained from the nonattenuated PET images would be of great interest to further improve the CT reconstruction
Fig. 6A —35-year-old man with osteosarcoma of left thigh. Coronal oblique CT, PET, coregistered PET/CT, and CT attenuation maximum-intensity-projection images from left to right, respectively. Patient was unable to extend leg and this resulted in truncation artifact. Before truncation correction (A), maximum standard uptake value (SUV) of tumor in truncated region (arrow, A) was 3.37, and after truncation correction (B), maximum SUV was 12.74 (arrow, B)—an increase of 278%.
Fig. 6B —35-year-old man with osteosarcoma of left thigh. Coronal oblique CT, PET, coregistered PET/CT, and CT attenuation maximum-intensity-projection images from left to right, respectively. Patient was unable to extend leg and this resulted in truncation artifact. Before truncation correction (A), maximum standard uptake value (SUV) of tumor in truncated region (arrow, A) was 3.37, and after truncation correction (B), maximum SUV was 12.74 (arrow, B)—an increase of 278%.
Fig. 7A —Large 73-year-old woman with lymphoma. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Truncation artifact affects soft tissue only, and truncated area on CT shows rim of increased attenuation value with corresponding decrease in 18F-FDG activity concentration. Before truncation correction, maximum standard uptake (SUV) value of soft tissue was 0.32 (arrow, A), and after truncation correction, maximum SUV was 0.79 (arrow, B)—an increase of 147%.
Fig. 7B —Large 73-year-old woman with lymphoma. Coronal CT (left), PET (middle), and coregistered PET/CT (right) images obtained before (A) and after (B) truncation correction. Truncation artifact affects soft tissue only, and truncated area on CT shows rim of increased attenuation value with corresponding decrease in 18F-FDG activity concentration. Before truncation correction, maximum standard uptake (SUV) value of soft tissue was 0.32 (arrow, A), and after truncation correction, maximum SUV was 0.79 (arrow, B)—an increase of 147%.
In conclusion, the discrepancy between PET and CT FOVs in an integrated PET/CT scanner when imaging extends beyond the CT FOV can cause a truncation artifact that affects SUV measurements. Because these measurements can have a major impact on the clinical management of oncology patients, recognition of this artifact is important so that the correction algorithm can be applied to prevent an inappropriate assessment of tumor grade, staging, and response to therapy. The new truncation-correction algorithm used in this study is capable of correcting PET/CT truncation artifacts in tissues with different densities and activity concentrations with small residual error.

Footnotes

Presented in part at the 2005 meeting of the American Roentgen Ray Society, New Orleans, LA.
Address correspondence to O. Mawlawi ([email protected]).

References

1.
Bury T, Barreto A, Daenen F, Barthelemy N, Ghaye B, Rigo P. Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:1244-1247
2.
van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1388-1393
3.
Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Mukherjee S, Pask AH, Bass CS, Katholi CR. Positron emission tomography scanning with 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose as a predictor of response of neoadjuvant treatment for non-small cell carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 125:938-944
4.
Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2651-2657
5.
Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. 18F-FDG PET evaluation of the response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung, and colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:224-239
6.
Reed CE, Harpole DH, Posther KE, et al. Results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0050 trial: the utility of positron emission tomography in staging potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126:1943-1951
7.
Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:254-261
8.
Pelosi E, Messa C, Sironi S, et al. Value of integrated PET/CT for lesion localisation in cancer patients: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:932-939
9.
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2500-2507
10.
Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003; 229:526-533
11.
Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998; 25:2046-2053
12.
Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:588-596
13.
Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL, et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology: impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging 2000; 3:223-230
14.
Hsieh J, Chao E, Thibault J, et al. A novel reconstruction algorithm to extend the CT scan field of view. Med Phys 2004; 31:2385-2391
15.
Carney J, Beyer T, Yap JT, Townsend DW. CT-based attenuation correction for PET/CT scanners. In: Schulthess GKV, ed. Clinical molecular anatomic imaging: PET, PET/CT, and SPECT/CT. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003:51-58
16.
Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Schwarz K, Heiken JP, Bae KT. Efficient correction for CT image artifacts caused by objects extending outside the scan field of view. Med Phys 2000; 27:39-46
17.
Lonn AH, Hsieh J, Steans CW, Chao EH, Gerkowicz B. Evaluation of extension of the CT attenuation map in PET/CT. (abstr) J Nucl Med 2003; 44:39P
18.
Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA., Kohlmyer S, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:1734-1742
19.
Stearns CW, Fessler JA. 3D PET reconstruction with FORE & WLS-OS-EM. Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conferenece. [CD-ROM]
20.
Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1137-1143
21.
Goerres GW, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Why most PET of lung and head-and-neck cancer will be PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45[suppl 1]:66S-71S
22.
Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Respiratory motion artifacts on PET emission images obtained using CT attenuation correction on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:603-606
23.
Erasmus JJ, Truong MT, Mawlawi O. PET/CT of the thorax: techniques and pitfalls. In: McAdams HP and Reddy GP, eds. Cardiopulmonary imaging: categorical course syllabus. Leesburg, VA: American Roentgen Ray Society, 2005:287-300

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

American Journal of Roentgenology
Pages: 1458 - 1467
PubMed: 16632745

History

Submitted: February 14, 2005
Accepted: April 6, 2005

Keywords

  1. attenuation correction
  2. nuclear medicine
  3. oncologic imaging
  4. PET/CT
  5. truncation artifact

Authors

Affiliations

Osama Mawlawi
Department of Imaging Physics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 56, Houston, TX 77030.
Jeremy J. Erasmus
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Tinsu Pan
Department of Imaging Physics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 56, Houston, TX 77030.
Dianna D. Cody
Department of Imaging Physics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 56, Houston, TX 77030.
Rachelle Campbell
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Albert H. Lonn
GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI.
Steve Kohlmyer
GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI.
Homer A. Macapinlac
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Donald A. Podoloff
Department of Imaging Physics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 56, Houston, TX 77030.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

To download the citation to this article, select your reference manager software.

Articles citing this article

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

PDF Download

Download PDF

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media