Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportInstrumentation & Data Analysis: Data Analysis & Management

Prevalence of patient motion in dynamic PET

Ran Klein, Chad Hunter, Rob Beanlands and Robert deKemp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2105;
Ran Klein
1National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chad Hunter
2Physics Department, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rob Beanlands
1National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert deKemp
1National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2105

Objectives Quantification of physiologic function, such as myocardial perfusion, is achievable with dynamic PET imaging and is of increasing clinical importance. However, image processing using either region of interest derived functions or image decomposition assumes that the patient is stationary throughout the dynamic image sequence. Patient motion can lead to quantification artifacts and misdiagnosis. The goal of this project was to measure the prevalence of motion in a typical clinical population and to develop an automated method for detection of the patient motion.

Methods Patients (n=236, 120 Male, 63.6±11.4 yo) that were referred for routine myocardial perfusion imaging were imaged using 82Rb PET/CT at rest and pharmacologic stress with a dynamic imaging protocol (15 variable length time frames over 10 min). All rest and stress images (n=472 total) were manually reviewed by a single observer for the presence of patient motion. Any image having >6 mm shift over the dynamic sequence was classified as having motion. The images were also processed using an in-house software package for myocardial blood flow quantification which includes a new patient motion warning. Sequential images time frames, in the last 8 min of the scan (post blood peak activity), were shifted with respect to each other in three dimensions and the cross-correlation vs. shift was recorded. The shift with highest correlation was assumed to correspond to motion between frames, and total motion >4 mm was assumed significant. The agreement between software detection and manual detection of motion was compared.

Results Of the 472 images, 134 (29%) had significant motion as determined by the observer. Of these images 126 (94.0%) were correctly identified by the software. Of the images that were not identified correctly, motion was gradual over several time frames.

Conclusions Patient motion is common in a clinical setting and the need for motion correction exists. Cross-correlation between neighboring time frames can be used to detect patient motion

Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 52, Issue supplement 1
May 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prevalence of patient motion in dynamic PET
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Prevalence of patient motion in dynamic PET
Ran Klein, Chad Hunter, Rob Beanlands, Robert deKemp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2105;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prevalence of patient motion in dynamic PET
Ran Klein, Chad Hunter, Rob Beanlands, Robert deKemp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2105;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Instrumentation & Data Analysis: Data Analysis & Management

  • Variability in SUV biodistribution in delayed PET-MR studies
  • Automated temporal subtraction scheme of torso FDG-PET scans by using a statistical shape model for normal cases
  • Impact of partial volume correction on FDG treatment response measures in head and neck and advanced ovarian cancer
Show more Instrumentation & Data Analysis: Data Analysis & Management

Data Analysis and Management Posters

  • Quantitative differences of pancreatic lesions in cilinical simultaneous [18F]FDG PET/MR imaging:TOF versus non-TOF measurements
  • Extension of the MIAKAT analysis software package to non-brain and pre-clinical PET analysis.
  • Robustness of radiomic features in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: impact of parameter settings on different feature matrices
Show more Data Analysis and Management Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire