Data-driven head motion correction for PET using time-of-flight and positron emission particle tracking techniques

Tasmia Rahman Tumpa; Shelley N. Acuff; Jens Gregor; Yong Bradley; Yitong Fu; Dustin R. Osborne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272768

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 20, 2022
15 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Jonathan Engle, Editor PONE-D-22-14720Data-Driven Head Motion Correction for PET using Time-of-Flight and Positron Emission Particle Tracking TechniquesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Osborne, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jonathan Engle, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please ensure you have stated in the Ethics Statement on the online submission form whether participant consent was informed (via 'Edit Submission'). Please also ensure you state in the Methods section of your manuscript text this information regarding participant consent. Additionally, please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript is a sound description of a method for motion correction in PET, and the reviewer points out the two main concerns I had after my original read of the submission. Please address these in your response. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: There are two concerns which I think need to be addressed. The first is the dosimetry of the point sources to the lens of the eye. This is one of the critical organs and the dose here is not addressed even though the point sources on the glasses sit very close to the eye. The activity level in the point sources was mentioned in order to be able to do the estimate. The other concern is in the movement of the glasses with respect to the skull. It was mentioned that there was no movement, but it was not mentioned if this was solely by visual inspection or if there was another method used. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272768.r001
Revision 1
6 Jul 2022 Author Response Point by Point Response to Reviewers 1. Reviewer feedback: Point source dosimetry and discussion not included in manuscript Point source dosimetry information was added to the discussion section and more detail and context also provided in our cover letter. Cover Letter Text: Regarding point source dosimetry, this was a concern when we initiated the Institutional Review Board process and we assessed lens dose to the eye in the worst-case scenario with our point sources fully exposed to the eye at 1 cm assuming also no goggles to provide beta shielding. The rate constants at 1 cm for F-18 is approximately 6 R/hr/mCi and 300 R/hr/mCi for gamma and beta exposure, giving a total exposure rate for our scenario of 306 R/hr/mCi. The maximum point source activity used was 5 microCuries giving a total exposure rate of 1.53 R/hr. Using the standard diagnostic conversion of 9.33 mSv/R we have a dose rate of 14.3 mSv/hr, which for gammas and betas equates to a maximum dose rate of 14.3 mGy/hr. Even in our extreme scenario, we determined we were still well under the very conservative 0.5 Gy acute eye lens deterministic limits set by the ICRP in 2018 that even with 30 minutes of exposure to the point sources would still be approximately 70x less than a dose that would deterministically cause any issues with the lens of the eye. More realistically, the ~5 mm of plastic likely shields nearly all of the betas and the point source distances were 2-4 cm from the lens of the eye having to also transmit through other materials (skull, etc.) to reach the lens. We determined using the assumptions below that our more realistic worst-case dose to the lens of the eye for a single point source used in this work was 0.07 mGy which is 7,000x less than the conservative ICRP guidance for deterministic lens effects: • Beta emissions almost completely absorbed by 5 mm plastic goggles. • Point source 1 cm from lens of the eye positioned directly in front of the eye. • Total exposure of 15 minutes to the point sources Updates to Discussion Section of Manuscript: The proximity of the point sources warranted some concern for possible exposure to the sensitive lens of the eye even though the point sources used in this work were very weak. As part of our initial IRB review and approval, we estimated lens doses to the eye under worst-case conditions using a 5 microCurie source positioned 1 cm directly in front of the eye without accounting for beta shielding from the plastic goggles. Our total dose rate estimated under these worst case conditions was 14.3 mGy/hr which even for 30 minutes of total exposure would be 70x less than even the updated 0.5 Gy deterministic limit set by the International Commission on Radiation Protection in 2018. Our more realistic, yet still conservative, estimates assuming a 5 microCurie source, goggle beta shielding, 1 cm distance, and 15 minutes of exposure resulted in a total estimated dose of 0.07 mGy to the lens of the eye. 2. Reviewer Feedback: Independent Goggle Movement from Patient head Additional information on the goggles and our testing was added to our goggles/glasses discussion in the discussion section. We tested different surfaces on which the point sources can be placed including a head band and directly on the skin but found lab goggles to be more comfortable for the patient while also providing a secure fit. Using a structure to separate the source from the patient skin is desirable as it enables an air gap between the activity naturally being taken up by the patient tissue and the sources being tracked. For this study, the patients were told when to move so we knew when to visually observe for any possible glasses movement. Additionally, the ranges of motion assessed also did not result in head positioning that caused contact with the goggles that would have caused unwanted movement and would have resulted in an additional PET acquisition. Only visual assessment of motion was performed but we did not observe movement of the glasses relative to the head for any of the patients, however, one limitation of using external sources that are not attached to the skin would be the potential risk for the glasses to shift during imaging in such way as to no longer be aligned with the patient head movement. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ReviewerResponse.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272768.r002
26 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Jonathan Engle, Editor Data-Driven Head Motion Correction for PET using Time-of-Flight and Positron Emission Particle Tracking Techniques PONE-D-22-14720R1 Dear Dr. Osborne, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Jonathan Engle, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272768.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Jonathan Engle, Editor PONE-D-22-14720R1 Data-Driven Head Motion Correction for PET using Time-of-Flight and Positron Emission Particle Tracking Techniques Dear Dr. Osborne: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Engle Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272768.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .