Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Home | About IJNM | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Ahead of Print | Online submissionLogin 
Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 864 Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 Table of Contents     
TECHNICAL NOTE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 235-237  

Correction of positron emission tomography maximum intensity projection image artifact using retro reconstruction method


Department of Nuclear Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Date of Submission24-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance04-May-2020
Date of Web Publication01-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Harmandeep Singh
Department of Nuclear Medicine, PGIMER, Sector-12, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijnm.IJNM_53_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Artifacts in positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography imaging can result from a number of factors. Presence of imaging artifacts affects interpretation and can sometimes render the image uninterpretable. Correction of artifacts can be attempted by reprocessing of data. In the present study, one PET maximum intensity projection image artifact was corrected by employing the method of retro-reconstruction.

Keywords: Artifact, artifact correction, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, reconstruction


How to cite this article:
Rana N, Singh H, Vatsa R, Watts A, Mittal BR. Correction of positron emission tomography maximum intensity projection image artifact using retro reconstruction method. Indian J Nucl Med 2020;35:235-7

How to cite this URL:
Rana N, Singh H, Vatsa R, Watts A, Mittal BR. Correction of positron emission tomography maximum intensity projection image artifact using retro reconstruction method. Indian J Nucl Med [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 7];35:235-7. Available from: http://www.ijnm.in/text.asp?2020/35/3/235/288468




   Introduction Top


Artifacts in patient imaging denotes any abnormality in image which is not a true representation of the physiological or anatomical information of the patient.[1] Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) image artifacts can be related to any of the following factors: the patient, radiotracer, or instrumentation.[2] Various artifacts can also be seen due to correction of the PET data using CT.[3],[4] These artifacts can result in incorrect quantification, misinterpretation, or incomplete scan information.[5],[6],[7] Some of these artifacts can be corrected post imaging. However, few of the artifacts which cannot be corrected, render the image inappropriate for deriving the desired information. This may require subjecting the patient to re-imaging and hence, increased patient distress and radiation dose. Many image artifacts in PET/CT imaging have been documented in literature, along with the method of correction for few.[8],[9] Artifacts can be minimized by using standard procedures during image acquisition, but it is not always possible, for example artifacts arising due to extravasation of administered radioactivity. We share our experience of a PET maximum intensity projection (MIP) image artifact which can be seen commonly in PET/CT imaging due to extravasation of radiotracer and it is correction.


   Case Reports Top


Case 1

Whole-body PET/CT images of a patient with pyrexia of unknown origin were acquired 45 min post intravenous injection of 6.7 mCi (248 MBq) of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with hands by side of the body. On review of the reconstructed images, three-dimensional (3D) MIP image of the patient was found to be pixelated [Figure 1]a, likely due to partial extravasation of tracer at injection site in the right hand. Presence of high tracer activity in a single-bed position due to extravasation of injected radiotracer, contamination, or due to the presence of urinary bladder activity in patients who are not able to void, can result in lesser counts in rest of the image and a pixelated 3D MIP image. The quality of transaxial PET images was not affected [Figure 1]b, [Figure 1]c, [Figure 1]d, [Figure 1]f, [Figure 1]g, [Figure 1]h, but it is important to correct the MIP image as MIP gives the overall review of the tracer uptake in the body and helps to identify abnormal areas of tracer uptake at a glance. In an attempt to correct this artifact, retro-reconstruction of PET data was attempted after excluding the raw data of last bed position with the extravasated activity and only seven out of eight bed positions were reconstructed. After reconstruction, corrected MIP image was obtained with no pixilation, as shown in [Figure 1]e.
Figure 1: A 40-year-old female with pyrexia of unknown origin underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for localization of infective foci. The maximum intensity projection image (a) shows pixelation rendering it due to extravasation of radiotracer in the right hand region, rendering it uninterpretable. Maximum intensity projection image (e) obtained post correction after reducing axial field of view was free of artifact. The transaxial image quality at the level of brain, abdomen, and pelvis was not affected before (b-d) and after correction (f-h) of positron emission tomography data

Click here to view


Case 2

In another patient with a referral diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis, head-to-toe PET/CT images were acquired 65 min post administration of 4.1 mCi (151 MBq) of 18 F-FDG with arms by the side of the body. Reconstruction of the images showed a pixelated MIP due to extravasation of activity near the elbow joint [Figure 2]a. In this case, the frame containing extravasation site was not at the periphery of the axial field of view. Hence, instead of doing retro-reconstruction by reducing the axial field of view, the display field of view (DFOV), i.e., the field of view in radial direction, was reduced from the standard 70 cm to just exclude the extravasation site without truncating the patient's body contour. Retro-reconstruction with a DFOV of 30 cm resulted in corrected MIP image, with no pixelation [Figure 2]b. The transaxial PET image quality before and after correction of MIP was not affected [Figure 2]c, [Figure 2]d, [Figure 2]e, [Figure 2]f.
Figure 2: A 5-year-old male with Langerhans cell histiocytosis underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for evaluation of disease activity and extent. Positron emission tomography maximum intensity projection image (a) shows pixilation due to extravasation of radiotracer in the right elbow region. Maximum intensity projection image (d) obtained post correction by reducing radial field of view shows resolution of the artifact. The transaxial positron emission tomography image quality at the level of brain and abdomen was not affected before (b and c) and after correction (e and f) of positron emission tomography data

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


The pixelation artifact in PET MIP images resulting from extravasation of radiotracer can be corrected by retro-reconstruction after reducing either the axial field of view or the radial DFOV.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Howarth DM, Forstrom LA, O'Connor MK, Thomas PA, St Cardew AP. Patient-related pitfalls and artifacts in nuclear medicine imaging. Semin Nucl Med 1996;26:295-307.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Simpson DL, Bui-Mansfield LT, Bank KP. FDG PET/CT: Artifacts and pitfalls. Contemp. Diagn Radiol 2017;40:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Waheeda S, Mawlawi O. PET/CT imaging artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 2005;33:156-61.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Blodgett TM, McCook BM, Federle MP. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: Protocol issues and options. Semin Nucl Med 2006;36:157-68.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kiser JW, Crowley JR, Wyatt DA, Lattanze RK. Impact of an 18F-FDG PET/CT radiotracer injection infiltration on patient management — A case report. Front Med 2018;5:143.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:122-33.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wang X, Koch S. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography potential pitfalls and artifacts. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2009;38:156-69.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
International Atomic Energy Agency. PET/CT Atlas on quality control and image artefacts. Human Health Series No. 27. Vienna: IAEA; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Pettinato C, Nanni C, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Sarnelli A, Civollani S, et al. Artefacts of PET/CT images. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2006;2:e60.  Back to cited text no. 9
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Case Reports
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed65    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal