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 ReportGeneral Clinical Specialties Track

Comparison of 18F-FDG PET-CT and PET-MR imaging of pulmonary tuberculosis

Benjamin Thomas, James Molton, Francesca Leek, John Totman, David Townsend and Nicholas Paton
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 546;
Benjamin Thomas
1A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
2A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Molton
3National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francesca Leek
1A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
2A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Totman
1A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
2A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Townsend
1A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
2A[asterisk]STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Reserach Centre Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas Paton
3National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine Singapore Singapore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

546

Objectives To compare the performance of 18F-FDG PET-CT and PET-MR in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in terms of visual detection and quantification accuracy.

Methods Ten subjects with confirmed tuberculosis (age: 55.1 ± 9.6 years [mean ± s.d.]; range: 42.1 - 74.6 years) were recruited. Subjects received an 18F-FDG dose of 129.3 ± 4.0 MBq (mean ± s.d.). Five of the ten subjects underwent a PET-MR scan on a Siemens mMR, followed by PET-CT on a Siemens mCT, while the remaining five were imaged first on the mCT followed by the mMR imaging. The PET-MR studies were performed using two 12-channel surface coils. MR imaging included Dixon imaging for MR-based Attenuation Correction (MRAC), T1 VIBE (pre- and post-contrast), T2 HASTE, T2 PACE, T2 TRUFI and DWI (b50 and 800). PET data were acquired for 15 minutes at 65.9 ± 15.0 minutes (mean ± s.d.) p.i. when performing PET-MR imaging first, and 98.2 ± 15.7 minutes when PET-MR data were acquired second. The PET data were reconstructed using Ordinary-Poisson (OP) OSEM with 3 iterations and 21 subsets. A Gaussian post-smoothing filter of 6 mm FWHM was applied. The matrix size was 172 × 172, with a voxel size of 4.17 × 4.17 mm and slice thickness of 2.03 mm. Subjects underwent CT covering the whole lung in either one or two bed positions. PET data were acquired for 10 minutes per bed position. The PET-CT study was performed at 68.2 ± 17.7 minutes p.i. (114.5 ± 7.5 minutes as the second acquisition). Images were reconstructed with OP-OSEM (3 iterations, 24 subsets) and a 6 mm post-smooth filter. The reconstructed PET image matrix was 200 × 200 with a voxel size of 4.07 × 4.07 mm and slice thickness of 2.03 mm. Both the time-of-flight (ToF) and point-spread function (PSF) modelling capabilities of the mCT were not applied in order to produce images that were comparable with those of the mMR. A visual lesion detection task and SUV analysis were performed. SUV iso-contour (50% maximum) volumes of interest (VOIs) were defined on the PET from the PET-CT study in PMOD (v.3.6 PMOD Technologies, Zürich). These VOIs were then propagated to the PET/MR space via non-rigid registration. Calculation of SUVs was performed in the PET space of both studies. A maximum of 10 lesions per subject were included to avoid any individual subject being over-represented. A Two-Way ANOVA was used (R; v. 3.1.2) to assess both the difference between scanners and the influence of scanning order. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results A total of 113 PTB lesions were detected on PET-MR and 118 on PET-CT. SUV analysis was performed on 78 of these lesions. Strong correlations were observed for both SUVmean and SUVmax, with r2=0.64 and r2=0.73 respectively. SUVmean and SUVmax were significantly lower on PET-MR (SUVmean: 2.37 ± 1.31; SUVmax: 4.07 ± 2.21) than PET-CT (SUVmean: 3.49 ± 1.38; SUVmax: 5.18 ± 2.20). The scan order was also found to have an effect (SUVmean: p = 0.015; SUVmax: p = 0.027), suggesting that FDG accumulation may continue to increase in PTB beyond 60 minutes. Visual assessment of the Dixon MRAC mu-maps demonstrated that PTB lesions tend to be assigned the linear attenuation coefficient (LAC) for lung.

Conclusions PET-MR visual performance was shown to be comparable to PET-CT in terms of the number of PTB lesions detected. Measured mean and maximum SUVs were significantly lower on PET/MR, although strongly correlated with PET/CT. Dixon-based attenuation correction under-estimates the LACs of PTB lesions, resulting in lower SUVs compared to PET/CT.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue supplement 2
May 1, 2016
  • 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.
Comparison of 18F-FDG PET-CT and PET-MR imaging of pulmonary tuberculosis
(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
Comparison of 18F-FDG PET-CT and PET-MR imaging of pulmonary tuberculosis
Benjamin Thomas, James Molton, Francesca Leek, John Totman, David Townsend, Nicholas Paton
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 546;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of 18F-FDG PET-CT and PET-MR imaging of pulmonary tuberculosis
Benjamin Thomas, James Molton, Francesca Leek, John Totman, David Townsend, Nicholas Paton
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 546;
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

General Clinical Specialties Track

  • Quantitative Evaluation of Parathyroid Adenoma and Hyperplasia in Reference to Thyroid using Tc-99m MIBI SPECT/CT
  • A primitive study for clinical application of 18F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET/CT in combination with 18F-FDG PET/CT for imaging neuroendocrine neoplasms
  • Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of disease burden and response assessment in patients with myeloid sarcoma
Show more General Clinical Specialties Track

Infectious Disease/Hematology

  • 18F-FDG-PET/CT value for early diagnosis of Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome (IRIS) in HIV+ patients
  • Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of hospitalized patients with FUO
  • Can Gallium-68 PET differentiate acute interstitial nephritis from acute tubular necrosis?
Show more Infectious Disease/Hematology

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire