RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of different metal artifact reduction algorithms on Hounsfield units (HU) and the standardized uptake value (SUV) in normal organs in patients with different metal implants. METHODS: This study prospectively included 66 patients (mean age of 66.02 ± 13.1 years) with 87 different metal implants. CT image reconstructions were performed using weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) as the standard method, metal artifact reduction in image space (MARIS), and an iterative metal artifacts reduction (iMAR) algorithm for large implants. These datasets were used for PET attenuation correction. HU and SUV measurements were performed in nine predefined anatomical locations: liver, lower lung lobes, descending aorta, thoracic vertebral body, autochthonous back muscles, pectoral muscles, and internal jugular vein. Differences between HU and SUV measurements were compared using paired t-tests. The significance level was determined as p = 0.017 using Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between reconstructed images using iMAR and WFBP concerning HU and SUV measurements in liver (HU: p = 0.055; SUVmax: p = 0.586), lung (HU: p = 0.276; SUVmax: p = 1.0 for the right side and HU: p = 0.630; SUVmax: p = 0.109 for the left side), descending aorta (HU: p = 0.333; SUVmax: p = 0.083), thoracic vertebral body (HU: p = 0.725; SUVmax: p = 0.392), autochthonous back muscles (HU: p = 0.281; SUVmax: p = 0.839), pectoral muscles (HU: p = 0.481; SUVmax: p = 0.277 for the right side and HU: p = 0.313; SUVmax: p = 0.859 for the left side), or the internal jugular vein (HU: p = 0.343; SUVmax: p = 0.194). CONCLUSION: Metal artifact reduction algorithms such as iMAR do not alter the data information of normal organs not affected by artifacts.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of different metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms on Hounsfield unit (HU) and standardized uptake values (SUV) in a phantom setting and verify these results in patients with metallic implants undergoing oncological PET/CT examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this prospective study, PET-CT examinations of 28 oncological patients (14 female, 14 male, mean age 69.5 ± 15.2y) with 38 different metal implants were included. CT datasets were reconstructed using standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) without MAR, MAR in image space (MARIS) and iterative MAR (iMAR, hip algorithm). The three datasets were used for PET attenuation correction. SUV and HU measurements were performed at the site of the most prominent bright and dark band artifacts. Differences between HU and SUV values across the different reconstructions were compared using paired t-tests. Bonferroni correction was used to prevent alpha-error accumulation (p < 0.017). RESULTS: For bright band artifacts, MARIS led to a non-significant mean decrease of 12.0% (345 ± 315 HU) in comparison with WFBP (391 ± 293 HU), whereas iMAR led to a significant decrease of 68.3% (125 ± 185 HU, p < 0.017). For SUVmean, MARIS showed no significant effect in comparison with WFBP (WFBP: 0.99 ± 0.40, MARIS: 0.96 ± 0.39), while iMAR led to a significant decrease of 11.1% (0.88 ± 0.35, p < 0.017). Similar results were observed for dark band artifacts. CONCLUSION: iMAR significantly reduces artifacts caused by metal implants in CT and thus leads to a significant change of SUV measurements in bright and dark band artifacts compared with WFBP and MARIS, thus probably improving PET quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present work indicates that MAR algorithms such as iMAR algorithm in integrated PET/CT scanners are useful to improve CT image quality as well as PET quantification in the evaluation of tracer uptake adjacent to large metal implants. A detailed analysis of oncological patients with various large metal implants using different MAR algorithms in PET/CT has not been conducted yet.