New full-counts phase-matched data-driven gated (DDG) PET/CT.

Background: Data-driven gated (DDG) PET has gained clinical acceptance and has been shown to match or outperform external-device gated (EDG) PET. However, in most clinical applications, DDG PET is matched with helical CT acquired in free breathing (FB) at a random respiratory phase, leaving registration, and optimal attenuation correction (AC) to chance. Furthermore, DDG PET requires additional scan time to reduce image noise as it only preserves 35%-50% of the PET data at or near the end-expiratory phase of the breathing cycle.

Purpose: A new full-counts, phase-matched (FCPM) DDG PET/CT was developed based on a low-dose cine CT to improve registration between DDG PET and DDG CT, to reduce image noise, and to avoid increasing acquisition times in DDG PET.

Methods: A new DDG CT was developed for three respiratory phases of CT images from a low dose cine CT acquisition of 1.35 mSv for a coverage of about 15.4 cm: end-inspiration (EI), average (AVG), and end-expiration (EE) to match with the three corresponding phases of DDG PET data: -10% to 15%; 15% to 30%, and 80% to 90%; and 30% to 80%, respectively. The EI and EE phases of DDG CT were selected based on the physiological changes in lung density and body outlines reflected in the dynamic cine CT images. The AVG phase was derived from averaging of all phases of the cine CT images. The cine CT was acquired over the lower lungs and/or upper abdomen for correction of misregistration between PET and FB CT as well as DDG PET and FB CT. The three phases of DDG CT were used for AC of the corresponding phases of PET. After phase-matched AC of each PET dataset, the EI and AVG PET data were registered to the EE PET data with deformable image registration. The final result was FCPM DDG PET/CT which accounts for all PET data registered at the EE phase. We applied this approach to 14 F-FDG lung cancer patient studies acquired at 2 min/bed position on the GE Discovery MI (25-cm axial FOV) and evaluated its efficacy in improved quantification and noise reduction.

Results: Relative to static PET/CT, the SUV increases for the EI, AVG, EE, and FCPM DDG PET/CT were 1.67 ± 0.40, 1.50 ± 0.28, 1.64 ± 0.36, and 1.49 ± 0.28, respectively. There were 10.8% and 9.1% average decreases in SUV from EI and EE to FCPM DDG PET/CT, respectively. EI, AVG, and EE DDG PET/CT all maintained increased image noise relative to static PET/CT. However, the noise levels of FCPM and static PET were statistically equivalent, suggesting the inclusion of all counts was able to decrease the image noise relative to EI and EE DDG PET/CT.

Conclusions: A new FCPM DDG PET/CT has been developed to account for 100% of collected PET data in DDG PET applications. Image noise in FCPM is comparable to static PET, while small decreases in SUV were also observed in FCPM when compared to either EI or EE DDG PET/CT.