Adaptive data-driven motion detection and optimized correction for brain PET

Abstract

Head motion during PET scans causes image quality degradation, decreased concentration in regions with high uptake and incorrect outcome measures from kinetic analysis of dynamic datasets. Previously, we proposed a data-driven method, center of tracer distribution (COD), to detect head motion without an external motion tracking device. There, motion was detected using one dimension of the COD trace with a semiautomatic detection algorithm, requiring multiple user defined parameters and manual intervention. In this study, we developed a new data-driven motion detection algorithm, which is automatic, self-adaptive to noise level, does not require user-defined parameters and uses all three dimensions of the COD trace (3DCOD). 3DCOD was first validated and tested using 30 simulation studies (¹⁸F-FDG, N = 15; ¹¹C-raclopride (RAC), N = 15) with large motion. The proposed motion correction method was tested on 22 real human datasets, with 20 acquired from a high resolution research tomograph (HRRT) scanner (¹⁸F-FDG, N = 10; ¹¹C-RAC, N = 10) and 2 acquired from the Siemens Biograph mCT scanner. Real-time hardware-based motion tracking information (Vicra) was available for all real studies and was used as the gold standard. 3DCOD was compared to Vicra, no motion correction (NMC), one-direction COD (our previous method called 1DCOD) and two conventional frame-based image registration (FIR) algorithms, i.e., FIR1 (based on predefined frames reconstructed with attenuation correction) and FIR2 (without attenuation correction) for both simulation and real studies. For the simulation studies, 3DCOD yielded -2.3 ± 1.4% (mean ± standard deviation across all subjects and 11 brain regions) error in region of interest (ROI) uptake for ¹⁸F-FDG (-3.4 ± 1.7% for ¹¹C-RAC across all subjects and 2 regions) as compared to Vicra (perfect correction) while NMC, FIR1, FIR2 and 1DCOD yielded -25.4 ± 11.1% (-34.5 ± 16.1% for ¹¹C- RAC), -13.4 ± 3.5% (-16.1 ± 4.6%), -5.7 ± 3.6% (-8.0 ± 4.5%) and -2.6 ± 1.5% (-5.1 ± 2.7%), respectively. For real HRRT studies, 3DCOD yielded -0.3 ± 2.8% difference for ¹⁸F-FDG (-0.4 ± 3.2% for ¹¹C-RAC) as compared to Vicra while NMC, FIR1, FIR2 and 1DCOD yielded -14.9 ± 9.0% (-24.5 ± 14.6%), -3.6 ± 4.9% (-13.4 ± 14.3%), -0.6 ± 3.4% (-6.7 ± 5.3%) and -1.5 ± 4.2% (-2.2 ± 4.1%), respectively. In summary, the proposed motion correction method yielded comparable performance to the hardware-based motion tracking method for multiple tracers, including very challenging cases with large frequent head motion, in studies performed on a non-TOF scanner.

Keywords: COD; Data-driven; Head motion; Motion correction; Motion detection; PET.