Clinical Use of Siemens VG80 Deviceless Gating and Comparison to Standard Belt-Based Techniques

1535 Introduction: Respiratory motion correction is a key technological feature for modern PET/CT systems that enables improved diagnostic image quality and quantification. These systems typically require the use of hardware, often using a belt-based pressure detection systems that measure breathing. Belt-based systems result in decreased efficiency owing to the time needed to physically setup the belt on each patient, inconsistency as the belt may not fit all patients or may slip during imaging losing signal, and with new COVID-19 risks results in increased exposure to patients that are potentially contagious. Recently developed clinical implementations of data driven motion correction technology on the Biograph mCT (Siemens Healthineers, Buther, et Al., and Schleyer, et Al.) may provide a robust solution to respiratory motion that can improve imaging workflow and reduce close contact patient exposure for technologists. We examine new data driven motion correction technology in the Siemens VG80 software to compare to standard belt-based techniques. Methods: Initial assessments of the software-based gating included qualitative comparisons of 110 patients performed by imaging specialists during the initial testing phase. Ten patients were randomly chosen for more robust diagnostic and quantitative assessment by physicians and physicists. All patients were fitted with the respiratory belt and data reprocessed using both belt-based and data driven motion tracking methods. Diagnostic quality comparisons were performed by radiologists and radiology residents. Quantitative assessments were performed by physicists, radiologists, and radiology residents by drawing regions of interest on key lesions with assessments of maximum and minimum SUVs. Statistical analysis was then performed to determine the similarity of these values. Results: Qualitative review of 110 images did not show any significant clinical variation (example shown in the attached image showing the belt-based gating (left) compared to data-driven gating (right)). More in-depth review of ten random cases also confirmed no diagnostic difference between belt-based or deviceless gating methods. Quantitative review indicated no significant difference between measurements of max SUV in lesions with p >0.05 for all groups of lesions measured. Max SUV measurements differed by less than 5% for 14 lesions compared across 10 patients by two different observers. Conclusions: Preliminary data and assessments suggest the Siemens VG80 deviceless gating technology provides comparable results to belt-based pressure detection systems for mitigation of respiratory motion artifacts in PET/CT imaging.