Recent Advances in Hybrid Molecular Imaging Systems

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Nuclear medicine imaging methods that use radionuclides, such as positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), offer highly sensitive and quantitative tools for the detection and localization of the biochemical and functional abnormalities associated with various diseases. The introduction of dual-modality PET/CT and SPECT/CT systems to the clinical environment in the late 1990s is regarded as a revolutionary advance in modern diagnostic imaging, bringing precise anatomical localization to conventional PET and SPECT imaging techniques and enhancing the quantitation capabilities of these modalities. The great success of PET/CT has also revived interest in the combination of PET and MR scanners, leading to commercially available clinical PET/MR systems. In this article, we review the recent improvements made in these hybrid molecular imaging systems, which have been dramatic in terms of both hardware and software over the past decade. We focus primarily on the hybrid imaging systems that are currently used in clinical practice and the technologies applied in those systems, with emphasis on the efforts to improve their diagnostic performances for musculoskeletal diseases.

• References

• 1 Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML , et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008; 24 (5) 535-546
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Hsieh J. Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. 2nd ed. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 3 Yu L, Liu X, Leng S , et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 2009; 1 (1) 65-84
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Blamire AM. The technology of MRI—the next 10 years?. Br J Radiol 2008; 81 (968) 601-617
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Gold GE, Chen CA, Koo S, Hargreaves BA, Bangerter NK. Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193 (3) 628-638
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kim K-N, Jeong H, Heo P , et al. Improving RF field strength and uniformity in a local region by controlling individual transmitting RF phase in a 7T tranceive array coil. Biomed Eng Lett 2012; 2 (4) 223-232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Pomper MG, Lee JS. Small animal imaging in drug development. Curr Pharm Des 2005; 11 (25) 3247-3272
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hill DLG, Batchelor PG, Holden M, Hawkes DJ. Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol 2001; 46 (3) R1-R45
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zitová B, Flusser J. Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput 2003; 21: 977-1000
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Lee JS, Park KS, Lee DS, Lee CW, Chung JK, Lee MC. Development and applications of a software for Functional Image Registration (FIRE). Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2005; 78 (2) 157-164
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Gaidhane VH, Hote YV, Singh V. Nonrigid image registration using efficient similarity measure and Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. Biomed Eng Lett 2012; 2 (2) 118-123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 LaCroix KJ, Tsui BMW, Hasegawa BH, Brown JK. Investigation of the use of x-ray CT images for attenuation correction in SPECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1994; 41: 2793-2799
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Blankespoor SC, Xu X, Kaiki K , et al. Attenuation correction of SPECT using X-ray CT on an emission-transmission CT system: myocardial perfusion assessment. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1996; 43 (4) 2263-2274
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Seo Y, Mari C, Hasegawa BH. Technological development and advances in single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2008; 38 (3) 177-198
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T , et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41 (8) 1369-1379
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (6) 938-955
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Zaidi H, Alavi A. Current trends in PET and combined (PET/CT and PET/MR) systems design. PET Clin 2007; 2 (2) 109-123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Lee JS. Technical advances in current PET and hybrid imaging systems. Open Nucl Med J 2010; 2: 192-208
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Shao Y, Cherry SR, Farahani K , et al. Simultaneous PET and MR imaging. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42 (10) 1965-1970
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Raylman RR, Majewski S, Lemieux SK , et al. Simultaneous MRI and PET imaging of a rat brain. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (24) 6371-6379
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Cherry SR. Multimodality imaging: beyond PET/CT and SPECT/CT. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (5) 348-353
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Hicks RJ, Hofman MS. Is there still a role for SPECT-CT in oncology in the PET-CT era?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9 (12) 712-720
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Saha S, Burke C, Desai A, Vijayanathan S, Gnanasegaran G. SPECT-CT: applications in musculoskeletal radiology. Br J Radiol 2013; 86 (1031) 20120519
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Hung NM, Joung J, Lee K, Kim Y. Development of correction schemes for a small field of view gamma camera. Biomed Eng Lett 2012; 2 (4) 215-222
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 26 Anger HO. Scintillation camera. Rev Sci Instrum 1957; 29: 27-33
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Anger HO. Scintillation camera with multichannel collimators. J Nucl Med 1964; 5: 515-531
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Zeng GL, Galt JR, Wernick MN, Mintzer RA, Aarsvold JN. Single-photon emission computed tomography. In: Wernick MN, Aarsvold JN, , eds. Emission Tomography: The Fundamentals of PET and SPECT. San Diego, CA: Elsevier; 2004: 127-152
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 29 Peterson TE, Furenlid LR. SPECT detectors: the Anger Camera and beyond. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56 (17) R145-R182
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 CZT technology: fundamentals and applications. GE Heathcare White Paper 2010. Available at: http://www3.gehealthcare.com/~/media/Downloads/us/Product/Categories/Nuclear-Medicine/Cardiac%20Scanners/Discovery-NM570c/GEHealthcare-Whitepaper_CZT-Technology-20111201.pdf . Accessed on March 18, 2014
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Patton JA, Slomka PJ, Germano G, Berman DS. Recent technologic advances in nuclear cardiology. J Nucl Cardiol 2007; 14 (4) 501-513
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Erlandsson K, Kacperski K, van Gramberg D, Hutton BF. Performance evaluation of D-SPECT: a novel SPECT system for nuclear cardiology. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54 (9) 2635-2649
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Esteves FP, Raggi P, Folks RD , et al. Novel solid-state-detector dedicated cardiac camera for fast myocardial perfusion imaging: multicenter comparison with standard dual detector cameras. J Nucl Cardiol 2009; 16 (6) 927-934
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 DePuey EG. Advances in SPECT camera software and hardware: currently available and new on the horizon. J Nucl Cardiol 2012; 19 (3) 551-581 ; quiz 585
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Garcia EV, Faber TL, Esteves FP. Cardiac dedicated ultrafast SPECT cameras: new designs and clinical implications. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (2) 210-217
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Frey E, Tsui B. Collimator-detector response compensation in SPECT. In: Zaidi H, , ed. Quantitative Analysis of Nuclear Medicine Images. New York, NY: Springer; 2006: 141-166
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 37 Rahmim A, Zaidi H. PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges. Nucl Med Commun 2008; 29 (3) 193-207
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Ritt P, Vija H, Hornegger J, Kuwert T. Absolute quantification in SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38 (Suppl. 01) S69-S77
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Stansfield EC, Sheehy N, Zurakowski D, Vija AH, Fahey FH, Treves ST. Pediatric 99mTc-MDP bone SPECT with ordered subset expectation maximization iterative reconstruction with isotropic 3D resolution recovery. Radiology 2010; 257 (3) 793-801
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Bailey DL, Willowson KP. An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications. J Nucl Med 2013; 54 (1) 83-89
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Bailey DL. Transmission scanning in emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25 (7) 774-787
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Zaidi H, Hasegawa B. Determination of the attenuation map in emission tomography. J Nucl Med 2003; 44 (2) 291-315
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Vija H. Introduction to xSPECT technology: evolving multi-modal SPECT to become context-based and quantitative. Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. White Paper 2013. Available at: http://www.healthcare.siemens.com/siemens_hwem-hwen_ssxa_websites-context-root/wcm/idc/groups/public/@global/@imaging/@molecular/documents/download/mdax/ote3/~edisp/xspect_technical_white_paper-00957532.pdf . Accessed on: March 18, 2014
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Costelloe CM, Murphy Jr WA, Chasen BA. Musculoskeletal pitfalls in 18F-FDG PET/CT: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193 (3, Suppl): WS1-WS13 ; quiz S26–S30
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Lakkaraju A, Patel CN, Bradley KM, Scarsbrook AF. PET/CT in primary musculoskeletal tumours: a step forward. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (12) 2959-2972
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Fischer DR. Musculoskeletal imaging using fluoride PET. Semin Nucl Med 2013; 43 (6) 427-433
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Yoon SH, Kim KS, Kang SY , et al. Usefulness of 18F-fluoride PET/CT in breast cancer patients with osteosclerotic bone metastases. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 47 (1) 27-35
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (1) 68-78
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Kang JY, Lee WW, So Y, Lee BC, Kim SE. Clinical usefulness of ¹⁸F-fluoride bone PET. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 44 (1) 55-61
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Lewellen TK. Recent developments in PET detector technology. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53 (17) R287-R317
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Ito M, Hong SJ, Lee JS. Positron emission tomography (PET) detectors with depth-of-interaction (DOI) capability. Biomed Eng Lett 2011; 1 (2) 70-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38 (6) 1147-1157
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys 2013; 40 (6) 064301
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Alessio AM, Kinahan PE, Lewellen TK. Modeling and incorporation of system response functions in 3D whole body PET. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2004; 6: 3992-3996
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (8) 1315-1323
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K , et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (11) 1716-1722
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Schaefferkoetter J, Casey M, Townsend D, El Fakhri G. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58 (5) 1465-1478
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Watson CC. Estimating effective model kernel widths for PSF reconstruction in PET. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2011; 2368-2374
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) Report no. 160: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (2009). Available at: http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/160 . Accessed January 9, 2014
  PubMed
• 60 Chen GH, Tang J, Leng S. Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets. Med Phys 2008; 35 (2) 660-663
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 61 Sidky EY, Pan X. Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53 (17) 4777-4807
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 62 Beekma FJ, Kamphuis C. Ordered subset reconstruction for x-ray CT. Phys Med Biol 2001; 46 (7) 1835-1844
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 63 Kole JS, Beekman FJ. Evaluation of accelerated iterative x-ray CT image reconstruction using floating point graphics hardware. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (4) 875-889
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 64 Sharp GC, Kandasamy N, Singh H, Folkert M. GPU-based streaming architectures for fast cone-beam CT image reconstruction and demons deformable registration. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52 (19) 5771-5783
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 65 Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (1) 191-199
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 66 McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler Jr JM. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 2006; 26 (2) 503-512
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 67 Lee JS, Kang KW. PET/MRI. In: Kim EE, Lee MC, Inoue T, Wong W-H, , eds. Clinical PET and PET/CT: Principles and Applications. New York, NY: Springer; 2013: 373-390
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 68 Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, Judenhofer MS. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging?. Semin Nucl Med 2008; 38 (3) 199-208
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 69 Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M , et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56 (10) 3091-3106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 70 Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 2007; 48 (3) 471-480
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 71 Catana C, Wu Y, Judenhofer MS, Qi J, Pichler BJ, Cherry SR. Simultaneous acquisition of multislice PET and MR images: initial results with a MR-compatible PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (12) 1968-1976
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 72 Pichler BJ, Judenhofer MS, Catana C , et al. Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (4) 639-647
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 73 Schlemmer HP, Pichler BJ, Schmand M , et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: feasibility study. Radiology 2008; 248 (3) 1028-1035
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 74 Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B , et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (12) 1914-1922
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 75 Lee JS, Hong SJ. Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes for PET/MRI. In: Iniewski K, , ed. Electronic Circuits for Radiation Detection. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010: 179-200
  Google Scholar
• 76 Roncali E, Cherry SR. Application of silicon photomultipliers to positron emission tomography. Ann Biomed Eng 2011; 39 (4) 1358-1377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 77 Hong SJ, Song IC, Ito M , et al. An investigation into the use of Geiger-mode solid-state photomultipliers for simultaneous PET and MRI acquisition. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2008; 55 (3) 882-888
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 78 Yamamoto S, Imaizumi M, Watabe T , et al. Development of a Si-PM-based high-resolution PET system for small animals. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55 (19) 5817-5831
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 79 Kwon SI, Lee JS, Yoon HS , et al. Development of small-animal PET prototype using silicon photomultiplier (SiPM): initial results of phantom and animal imaging studies. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (4) 572-579
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 80 Yamaya T, Mitsuhashi T, Matsumoto T , et al. A SiPM-based isotropic-3D PET detector X'tal cube with a three-dimensional array of 1 mm(3) crystals. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56 (21) 6793-6807
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 81 Ko GB, Yoon HS, Kwon SI , et al. Development of a front-end analog circuit for multi-channel SiPM readout and performance verification for various PET detector designs. Nucl Instr Meth A 2013; 703: 38-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 82 Yoon HS, Ko GB, Kwon SI , et al. Initial results of simultaneous PET/MRI experiments with an MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (4) 608-614
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 83 Levin C, Glover G, Deller T, McDaniel D, Peterson W, Maramraju SH. Prototype time-of-flight PET ring integrated with a 3T MRI system for simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med 2013; 54 (Suppl. 02) 148
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 84 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AH, Von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29 (7) 922-927
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 85 Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003; 33 (3) 166-179
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 86 Carney JP, Townsend DW, Rappoport V, Bendriem B. Method for transforming CT images for attenuation correction in PET/CT imaging. Med Phys 2006; 33 (4) 976-983
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 87 Hofmann M, Steinke F, Scheel V , et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI: a novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (11) 1875-1883
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 88 Schreibmann E, Nye JA, Schuster DM, Martin DR, Votaw J, Fox T. MR-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET-MR brain imaging systems using deformable image registration. Med Phys 2010; 37 (5) 2101-2109
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 89 Kim JS, Lee JS, Park MH , et al. Feasibility of template-guided attenuation correction in cat brain PET imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 2010; 12 (3) 250-258
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 90 Malone IB, Ansorge RE, Williams GB, Nestor PJ, Carpenter TA, Fryer TD. Attenuation correction methods suitable for brain imaging with a PET/MRI scanner: a comparison of tissue atlas and template attenuation map approaches. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (7) 1142-1149
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 91 Schulz V, Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S , et al. Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38 (1) 138-152
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 92 Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G , et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (4) 520-526
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 93 Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36 (Suppl. 01) S93-S104
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 94 Johansson A, Karlsson M, Nyholm T. CT substitute derived from MRI sequences with ultrashort echo time. Med Phys 2011; 38 (5) 2708-2714
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 95 Catana C, van der Kouwe A, Benner T , et al. Toward implementing an MRI-based PET attenuation-correction method for neurologic studies on the MR-PET brain prototype. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (9) 1431-1438
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 96 Keereman V, Fierens Y, Broux T, De Deene Y, Lonneux M, Vandenberghe S. MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI using ultrashort echo time sequences. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (5) 812-818
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 97 Kim JH, Lee JS, Song IC, Lee DS. Comparison of segmentation-based attenuation correction methods for PET/MRI: evaluation of bone and liver standardized uptake value with oncologic PET/CT data. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (12) 1878-1882
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 98 Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M , et al. Performance of whole-body integrated ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med 2013;
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 99 Marshall HR, Prato FS, Deans L, Théberge J, Thompson RT, Stodilka RZ. Variable lung density consideration in attenuation correction of whole-body PET/MRI. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (6) 977-984
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar