New Data-Driven Gated PET/CT Free of Misregistration Artifacts.

<bold>Purpose: </bold>We developed a new data-driven gated (DDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) to improve the registration of CT and DDG PET.<bold>Methods: </bold>We acquired 10 repeat PET/CT and 35 cine CT scans for the mitigation of misregistration between CT and PET data. We also derived end-expiration phase CT as DDG CT for attenuation correction of DDG PET. Radiation exposure, body mass index (BMI), scan coverage, and effective radiation dose were compared between repeat PET/CT and cine CT. Of the 35 cine CT patients, 14 (capturing 59 total tumors) were compared among average PET/CT (baseline PET attenuation correction by average CT), DDG PET (DDG PET attenuation correction by baseline CT), and DDG PET/CT (DDG PET attenuation correction by DDG CT) for registration and quantification without increasing the scan time for DDG PET.<bold>Results: </bold>Compared with repeat PET/CT, cine CT had significantly lower scan coverage (32.5 ± 11.5 cm vs 15.4 ± 4.7 cm; P < .001) and effective radiation dose (3.7 ± 2.6 mSv vs 1.3 ± 0.6 mSv; P < .01). Repeat PET/CT and cine CT did not differ significantly in BMI or radiation exposure (P > .1). Cine CT saved the scan time for not needing a repeat PET. The SUV ratios of average PET/CT, DDG PET, and DDG PET/CT to baseline PET/CT were 1.14 ± 0.28, 1.28 ± 0.20, and 1.63 ± 0.64, respectively (P < .0001), suggesting that the SUVmax increased consecutively from baseline PET/CT to average PET/CT, DDG PET, and DDG PET/CT. Motion correction with DDG PET had a larger impact on quantification than registration improvement with average CT did. The biggest improvement in quantification was from DDG PET/CT, in which both registration was improved and motion was mitigated.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Our new DDG PET/CT approach alleviates misregistration artifacts and, compared with DDG PET, improves quantification and registration. The use of cine CT in our DDG PET/CT method also reduces the effective radiation dose and scan coverage compared with repeat CT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]