Here we evaluated the potential of TOF PET/MRI to reduce various PET image artifacts, by comparing the images to non-TOF PET/MRI, TOF PET/CT and non-TOF PET/CT.
The normalized difference between the baseline PET and artifact-corrected PET was used to produce a contour map showing the percentage difference from baseline in each area of the image.
MRI for one patient failed due to movement artifacts (PET for this patient was negative, flare was observed at 53 weeks after inclusion).
While MRI can provide the exact location of the probe, motion artifact correction, and PET partial volume correction, PET can afford better imaging quantification for higher detection sensitivity.
High resolution MR information can be used to enhance the PET reconstruction and MR artifacts are not present in the PET image.
This result was reliable as it was obtained with H2 [15]O PET which has no artifacts in this area, in contrast to fMRI, which is typically heavily distorted by susceptibility artifacts induced by the adjacent sinuses (normalization procedures may hide, but cannot compensate for these artifacts) [71], [72].
Their findings are in agreement with [98], where the authors proved with a simulation study that TOF information reduces the influence of metal artifacts in PET images.
The number of subsets used in RP was 16 or 24 to avoid image degradation (i.e., noise, artifacts), as PET image quality with OSEM declined as the number of subsets increased, even when the TOF algorithm was used [39].
The impact of μ-map artifacts on PET interpretation was evaluated qualitatively via visual analysis as well as quantitatively by comparing SUVmax of breast cancer between PET/MR mammography and whole body PET/MR.
However, the respiratory motion during PET acquisition leads to artifacts in PET/CT.
