In its most elementary form,

“multimodality imaging” connotes the evaluation of multiple image sets by a scientist or physician. Combining the information qualitatively Selleckchem R428 from different imaging modalities such as X-ray, US and nuclear imaging has been an integral aspect of patient diagnosis and management in radiology since each modality was developed [4]. However, it has only been in the last two decades that advances in digital imaging hardware and software have allowed for the development of quantitative image synthesis whereby two (or more) in vivo imaging modalities are geometrically aligned and combined to provide clinical or scientific advantages over either of the two contributing modalities in isolation. For example, as the nuclear methods of PET and SPECT may lack clear anatomical landmarks, the co-registration of these data to modalities that depict high-spatial-resolution anatomical data is natural; in doing so, the localization of radiotracer

uptake measured by PET and SPECT is significantly improved [5]. The first hybrid SPECT–CT scanner was developed in 1989 [6] and [7], and the first PET–CT camera was reported in 2000 by Beyer et al. [8]. Since that time, many studies have shown that SPECT–CT provides additional clinically useful information beyond either method on its own (see, e.g., Refs. [9], [10] and [11]). Similarly, it has been noted that “PET/CT is a more accurate test GSK2118436 in vitro than either of its individual components and is probably also better than side-by-side viewing of images from both modalities” [12]. Given the success that PET–CT and SPECT–CT imaging has experienced, it is not surprising Ponatinib purchase that considerable effort has been invested to develop hybrid PET–MRI devices [13] and [14]. The initial goal for integrating nuclear methods with CT (i.e., to provide information on anatomical landmarks) can also be

provided by MRI. Indeed, for many relevant disease sites, the anatomical information provided by MRI is superior to that provided by CT due to the greater inherent contrast resulting from differences in proton density and the magnetic relaxation properties of tissue (to which MRI is sensitive) versus the differences in the electron density (to which CT is sensitive). Additionally, PET–CT is not without its limitations. These include radiation exposure associated with the CT component of the examination, artifacts due to CT-based attenuation correction (which are extrapolated from lower energy data) [15], motion in the time interval between the PET and CT acquisitions [16], [17] and [18] and the not insignificant effects of iodine-based CT contrast agents on the quantification of PET data (summarized in Ref. [15]).