RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Evaluation of Data-Driven Respiration Gating in Continuous Bed Motion in Lung Lesions JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology JO J. Nucl. Med. Technol. FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 32 OP 37 DO 10.2967/jnmt.122.264909 VO 51 IS 1 A1 Nii, Takeshi A1 Hosokawa, Shota A1 Kotani, Tomoya A1 Domoto, Hiroshi A1 Nakamura, Yasunori A1 Tanada, Yasutomo A1 Kondo, Ryotaro A1 Takahashi, Yasuyuki YR 2023 UL http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/51/1/32.abstract AB Respiration gating is used in PET to prevent image quality degradation due to respiratory effects. In this study, we evaluated a type of data-driven respiration gating for continuous bed motion, OncoFreeze AI, which was implemented to improve image quality and the accuracy of semiquantitative uptake values affected by respiratory motion. Methods: 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed on 32 patients with lung lesions. Two types of respiration-gated images (OncoFreeze AI with data-driven respiration gating, device-based amplitude-based OncoFreeze with elastic motion compensation) and ungated images (static) were reconstructed. For each image, we calculated SUV and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). The improvement rate (IR) from respiration gating and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), which indicates the improvement in image noise, were also calculated for these indices. IR was also calculated for the upper and lower lobes of the lung. As OncoFreeze AI assumes the presence of respiratory motion, we examined quantitative accuracy in regions where respiratory motion was not present using a 68Ge cylinder phantom with known quantitative accuracy. Results: OncoFreeze and OncoFreeze AI showed similar values, with a significant increase in SUV and decrease in MTV compared with static reconstruction. OncoFreeze and OncoFreeze AI also showed similar values for IR and CNR. OncoFreeze AI increased SUVmax by an average of 18% and decreased MTV by an average of 25% compared with static reconstruction. From the IR results, both OncoFreeze and OncoFreeze AI showed a greater IR from static reconstruction in the lower lobe than in the upper lobe. OncoFreeze and OncoFreeze AI increased CNR by 17.9% and 18.0%, respectively, compared with static reconstruction. The quantitative accuracy of the 68Ge phantom, assuming a region of no respiratory motion, was almost equal for the static reconstruction and OncoFreeze AI. Conclusion: OncoFreeze AI improved the influence of respiratory motion in the assessment of lung lesion uptake to a level comparable to that of the previously launched OncoFreeze. OncoFreeze AI provides more accurate imaging with significantly larger SUVs and smaller MTVs than static reconstruction.