Impact of different metal artifact reduction techniques on attenuation correction in 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations.

ABSTRACT

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.