COMMON IMAGING ARTIFACTS ON FDG PET/CT: CAN THEY BE ELIMINATED?

Abstract

Physicians who are in charge with interpretation of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images should be familiar with the imaging artifacts which occur frequently, due to technical reasons. The most common and important ones are attenuation correction artifacts, artifacts due to high-density materials such as metallic implants or concentrated contrast material, respiratory motion artifacts and truncation artifacts. Each artifact can be eliminated or minimized by taking certain measures regarding the FDG PET/CT applications or preparing the patient properly.

Keywords

• Fluorodeoxyglucose F18,Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography,Artifacts

Common Imaging Artifacts on FDG PET/CT: Can They be Eliminated ?

Abstract

[18F]-2-floro-2-deoksi-D-glukoz (FDG) pozitron emisyon tomografisi (PET)/bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) görüntülerini yorumlayan hekimlerin, teknik nedenlere bağlı sıkça ortaya çıkan görüntüleme artefaktlarını tanımaları gerekir. En sık görülenleri ve en önemlileri atenüasyon düzeltme artefaktları, metalik implantlar veya yoğun kontrast maddeler gibi yüksek dansiteli materyallere bağlı artefaktlar, solunum hareket artefaktları ve trunkasyon (kesme, budama) artefaktlarıdır. Her bir artefakt FDG PET/BT uygulamaları ile ilgili önlemler alınarak veya hasta doğru şekilde hazırlanarak ortadan kaldırılabilir veya asgariye indirilebilir.

Keywords

• Fluorodeoksiglukoz F18,pozitron-emisyon tomografi/bilgisayarlı tomografi,, artefaktlar

References

1. 1. Tiwari M. (2019). Profile of patients at a state-run tertiary cancer hospital in India: an audit. Ulutas Med J; 5(3):194–201.
2. 2. Ari A, Buyukasik K, Segmen O, Akkus O, Tatar C. (2016). Lymph node yield in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: our clinical experience. Ulutas Med J; 2(1):36–40.
3. 3. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. (2015). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 42(2):328–54.
4. 4. Ayaz S. (2016). Letter to editor: FDG-PET/CT evaluation of breast cancer. Ulutas Med J; 2(3):157–8.
5. 5. Ayaz S, Durmaz HA, Döğen ME. (2019). Comparison of the FDG PET/CT parameters of primary tumors and liver metastases in cases with gastric adenocarcinomas. Cumhuriyet Üniv Sag Bil Enst Derg; (4)2:25–8.
6. 6. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. (2006). Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med; 47: 885−95.
7. 7. Sureshbabu W, Mawlawi O. (2005). PET/CT imaging artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol; 33(3):156−61.
8. 8. Mihailovič J, Matovina E, Nikoletič K. (2015). 18F-fluorideoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging: artifacts and pitfalls. Med Pregl; 68(1-2):41–8.

9. 9. Shammas A, Lim R, Charron M. (2009). Pediatric FDG PET/CT: physiologic uptake, normal variants, and benign conditions. Radiographics; 29(5):1467–86.
10. 10. Martin O, Aissa J, Boos J, Wingendorf K, Latz D, Buchbender C, et al. (2019). Impact of different metal artifact reduction techniques on attenuation correction in 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. Br J Radiol; 20190069. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190069. [Epub ahead of print]
11. 11. Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. (2003). Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol; 13:724–8.
12. 12. Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Links JM, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. (2003). Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med; 44(3):412–6.
13. 13. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Hauth E, Jentzen W, et al. (2004). Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology; 230(3):879–85.
14. 14. Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. (2003). Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT- based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med; 44(5):732–8.
15. 15. Li TR, Tian JH, Wang H, Chen ZQ, Zhao CL. (2009). Pitfalls in positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging: causes and their classifications. Chin Med Sci J; 24(1):12–9.
16. 16. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. (2003). Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med; 30:588–96.
17. 17. Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. (2003). Respiratory motion artifacts on PET emission images obtained using CT attenuation correction on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 30:603– 6.
18. 18. Zhang R, Zukić D, Byrd DW, Enquobahrie A, Alessio AM, Cleary K, et al. (2019). PET/CT-guided biopsy with respiratory motion correction. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 14(12):2187–98.
19. 19. Changlai SP, Huang CK, Luzhbin D, Lin FY, Wu J. (2019). Using cine-averaged CT with the shallow breathing pattern to reduce respiration-induced artifacts for thoracic cavity PET/CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1:1–7. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20606. [Epub ahead of print]
20. 20. Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Pan T, Cody DD, Campbell R, Lonn AH, Kohlmyer S, et al. (2006). Truncation artifact on PET/CT: impact on measurements of activity concentration and assessment of a correction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol; 186(5):1458–67.
21. 21. Beyer T, Bockisch A, Kühl H, Martinez MJ. (2006). Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT in the presence of truncation artifacts. J Nucl Med; 47(1):91–9.