The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) has shown an increase in both sensitivity and specificity over computed tomography (CT) in lung cancer. However, motion artifacts in the fluorodioxydoglucose (FDG) PET images caused by respiration persists to be an important factor in degrading PET image quality and quantification. Motion artifacts lead to two major effects: First, it affects the accuracy of quantitation, producing a reduction of the measured standard uptake value (SUV). Second, the apparent lesion volume is overestimated. Both impact upon the usage of PET images for radiation treatment planning. The first affects the visibility, or contrast, of the lesion. The second results in an increase in the planning target volume, and consequently a greater radiation dose to the normal tissues. One way to compensate for this effect is by applying a multiple‐frame capture technique. The PET data are then acquired in synchronization with the respiratory motion. Reduction in smearing due to gating was investigated in both phantoms and patient studies. Phantom studies showed a dependence of the reduction in smearing on the lesion size, the motion amplitude, and the number of bins used for data acquisition. These studies also showed an improvement in the target‐to‐background ratio, and a more accurate measurement of the SUV. When applied to one patient, respiratory gating showed a 28% reduction in the total lesion volume, and a 56.5% increase in the SUV. This study was conducted as a proof of principle that a gating technique can effectively reduce motion artifacts in PET image acquisition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
4D-CT imaging of a volume influenced by respiratory motion on multi-slice CT
Pan, T., Lee, T.-Y., Rietzel, E., & Chen, G. T. Y. (2004) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1639993 · Cited by 624
Respiratory Motion in Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Review
Nehmeh, S. A., & Erdi, Y. E. (2008) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.01.002 · Cited by 317
Self-citationZheng, B., von See, M. P., Yu, E., Gunel, B., Lu, K., Vazin, T., Schaffer, D. V., Goodwill, P. W., & Conolly, S. M. (2016) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.13728 · Cited by 322
Werner, M. K., Parker, J. A., Kolodny, G. M., English, J. R., & Palmer, M. R. (2009) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.09.2516 · Cited by 100
Improvements in PET Image Quality in Time of Flight (TOF) Simultaneous PET/MRI
Minamimoto, R., Levin, C., Jamali, M., Holley, D., Barkhodari, A., Zaharchuk, G., & Iagaru, A. (2016) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0939-8 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., & Humm, J. L.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-21
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 366-371
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2152683426
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.1448824
- The paper
- Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., & Humm, J. L. (2002). Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1448824
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.