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

Respiratory gating is the standard to prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET. Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data is a promising alternative to gating approaches requiring additional hardware (e.g., pressure-sensitive belt gating [BG]). However, continuous-bed-motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially extended PET, compared with DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort and compared with BG using optimally gated (OG) and fully motion-corrected (elastic motion correction [EMOCO]) reconstructions. Methods: Fifty-six patients with suspected malignancies in the thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body 18 F-FDG CBM PET/CT using DDG and BG. Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, OG and EMOCO reconstructions were used for BG and DDG. The metabolic volume, SUV max , and SUV mean of lesions were compared among the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in the different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by 3 experts. Results: The global correlation coefficient between BG and DDG signals was 0.48 ± 0.11, peaking at 0.89 ± 0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO, and DDG-EMOCO than in static images ( P &lt; 0.001; median SUV max : static, 14.3 ± 13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8 ± 15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5 ± 15.6; BG-OG, 19.6 ± 17.1; and DDG-OG, 18.9 ± 16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG or between BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions ( P &lt; 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and DDG for either EMOCO or OG reconstruction. Conclusion: DDG-based motion compensation of CBM PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to BG approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM PET systems.

Clinical Evaluation of a Data-Driven Respiratory Gating Algorithm for Whole-Body PET with Continuous Bed Motion