English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Metalic implants may affect attenuation correction (AC) in PET/MR imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of susceptibility artifacts related to metallic implants on adjacent metabolically active lesions in clinical simultaneous PET/MR scanning for both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF reconstructed PET images. Methods: We included 27 patients without implants but with confirmed 18 F-FDG-avid lesions adjacent to common implant locations. In all patients, a clinically indicated whole-body 18 F-FDG PET/MR scan was acquired. Baseline non-TOF and TOF PET images were reconstructed. Reconstruction was repeated after the introduction of artificial signal voids in the AC map to simulate metallic implants in standard anatomic areas. All reconstructed images were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed and compared with the baseline images. Results: In total, 51 lesions were assessed. In 40 and 50 of these cases (non-TOF and TOF, respectively), the detectability of the lesions did not change; in 9 and 1 cases, the detectability changed; and in 2 non-TOF cases, the lesions were no longer visible after the introduction of metallic artifacts. The inclusion of TOF information significantly reduced artifacts due to simulated implants in the femoral head, sternum, and spine ( P = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.03, respectively). It also improved image quality in these locations ( P = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.01, respectively). The mean percentage error was -3.5% for TOF and -4.8% for non-TOF reconstructions, meaning that the inclusion of TOF information reduced the percentage error in SUV max by 28.5% ( P &lt; 0.01). Conclusion: Qualitatively, there was a significant reduction of artifacts in the femoral head, sternum, and spine. There was also a significant qualitative improvement in image quality in these locations. Furthermore, our study indicated that simulated susceptibility artifacts related to metallic implants have a significant effect on small, moderately 18 F-FDG-avid lesions near the implant site that possibly may go unnoticed without TOF information. On larger, highly 18 F-FDG-avid lesions, the metallic implants had only a limited effect. The largest significant quantitative difference was found in artifacts of the sternum. There was only a weak inverse correlation between lesions affected by artifacts and distance from the implant.

The Effect of Susceptibility Artifacts Related to Metallic Implants on Adjacent-Lesion Assessment in Simultaneous TOF PET/MR