The Efficiency of Respiratory-gated 18F-FDG PET/CT in Lung Adenocarcinoma: Amplitude-gating Versus Phase-gating Methods

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Clinical Radiology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

2 Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

3 Department of Molecular Imaging and Diagnosis, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

4 Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

5 Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Abstract

Objective(s): In positron emission tomography (PET) studies, thoracic movement under free-breathing conditions is a cause of image degradation. Respiratory gating (RG) is commonly used to solve this problem. Two different methods, i.e., phase-gating (PG) and amplitude-gating (AG) PET, are available for respiratory gating. It is important to know the strengths and weaknesses of both methods when selecting an RG method
for a given patient. We conducted this study to clarify whether AG or PG is preferable for measuring fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) accumulation in lung adenocarcinoma and to investigate patient conditions which are most suitable for AG and PG methods.
Methods: A total of 31 patients (11 males, 20 females; average age: 11.6±70.1 yrs) with 44 lung lesions, diagnosed as lung adenocarcinoma between April 2012 and March 2013, were investigated. Whole-body FDG-PET/CT scan was performed with both PG and AG methods in all patients. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of PG, AG, and the control data of these two methods were measured, and the increase ratio (IR), calculated as IR(%)= (Post – Pre)/Pre × 100, was calculated. The diameter and position
of lung lesions were also analyzed. We defined an ‘effective lesion’ of PG (or AG) as a lesion which showed a higher IR compared to AG (or PG). 8 (25.8%)
Results: The average SUVmax and average IR were 7.94±8.99 and 25.6±21.4% in PG and 6.70±7.60 and 14.4±4.0% in AG, respectively. Although there was no significant difference between the average SUVmax of PG and AG (P=0.09), the average IR of PG was significantly higher than that of AG (P<0.01). The number of PG- and AG-effective lesions was 32 (72.7%) and 12 (28.3%) , respectively. There was no significant difference in the average diameter or position of the lesions between the PG- and AG-effective lesions.There were 23 (74.2%) PG-effective and 8 (25.8%) AG-effective patients. No significant difference was observed in sex or age between PG- and AG-effective patients.
Conclusion: The PG method was more effective for measuring FDG accumulation of lung lesions under free-breathing conditions in comparison with the AG method.

Keywords

Main Subjects


1. Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Respiratory motion artifacts on PET emission images obtained using CT attenuation correction on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(4):603-6.
2. Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Lung CC, Rosenzweig KE, Squire OD, Braban LE, et al. Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. Med Phys. 2002;29(3):366-71.
3. Chang G, Chang T, Pan T, Clark JW Jr, Mawlwawi OR. Implementation of an automated respiratory amplitude gating technique for PET/CT: clinical evaluation. J Nucl Med.  2010; 51(1): 16-24.
4. Kawano T, Ohtake E, Inoue T. Deep-inspiration breath-hold PET/CT versus free breathing PET/CT and respiratory gating PET for reference: evaluation in 95 patients with lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2011; 25(2):109-16.
5. García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón AM, Talavera Rubio MP, León Martín AA, Palomar Muñoz AM, Pilkington Woll JP, et al. (18)F-FDG PET-CT respiratory gating in characterization of pulmonary lesions: approximation towards clinical indications.Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24(3):207-14.
6. Knudtsen IS, Rødal J, Brustugun OT, Helland Å , Skretting A, Malinen E. Dynamic respiratory gated (18)FDG-PET of lung tumors - a feasibility study. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(6):889-96.
7. Werner MK, Parker JA, Kolodny GM, English JR, Palmer MR. Respiratory gating enhances imaging of pulmonary nodules and measurement of tracer uptake in FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol.
2009;193(6):1640-5.
8. Lupi A, Zaroccolo M, Salgarello M, Malfatti V, Zanco P. The effect of 18F-FDG-PET/CT respiratory gating on detected metabolic activity in lung lesions. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23(2):191-6.
9. Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei LF, Meeuwis AP, van der Vos CS, Gotthardt M, Oyen WJ, et al. Amplitude-based optimal respiratory gating in positron emission tomography in patients with primary lung cancer.Eur Radiol. 2014;24(12):3242-50.
10. Van Elmpt W, Hamill J, Jones J, De Ruysscher D, Lambin P, Ollers M. Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.
2011;38(5):843-55.
11. Jani SS, Robinson CG, Dahlbom M, White BM, Thomas DH, Gaudio S, et al. A comparison of amplitude-based and phase-based positron emission tomography gating algorithms for segmentation of internal target volumes of tumors subject to respiratory motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(3):562-9.
12. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline(version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 228-47.
13. Committee Task Group. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Ann ICRP. 1999;18(1):1-171.
14. Laffon E, de Clermont H, Lamare F, Marthan R. Estimating the amount of FDG uptake in physiological tissues. Nucl Med Biol. 2014; 41(9):717-20.