Literature DB >> 17033850

Evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) versus filtered back-projection for the assessment of myocardial glucose uptake and myocardial perfusion using dynamic PET.

Hanne M Søndergaard1, Mette Marie Madsen, Karin Boisen, Morten Bøttcher, Ole Schmitz, Torsten T Nielsen, Hans Erik Bøtker, Søren B Hansen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Iterative reconstruction methods based on ordered-subset expectation maximisation (OSEM) has replaced filtered backprojection (FBP) in many clinical settings owing to the superior image quality. Whether OSEM is as accurate as FBP in quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) is uncertain. We compared the accuracy of OSEM and FBP for regional myocardial (18)F-FDG uptake and (13)NH(3) perfusion measurements in cardiac PET.
METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were studied. Five underwent dynamic (18)F-FDG PET during hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp, and five underwent (13)NH(3) perfusion measurement during rest and adenosine-induced hyperaemia. Images were reconstructed using FBP and OSEM +/- an 8-mm Gaussian post-reconstruction filter.
RESULTS: Filtered and unfiltered images showed agreement between the reconstruction methods within +/-2SD in Bland-Altman plots of K (i) values. The use of a Gaussian filter resulted in a systematic underestimation of K (i) in the filtered images of 11%. The mean deviation between the reconstruction methods for both unfiltered and filtered images was 1.3%. Agreement within +/-2SD between the methods was demonstrated for perfusion rate constants up to 2.5 min(-1), corresponding to a perfusion of 3.4 ml g(-1) min(-1). The mean deviation between the two methods for unfiltered data was 2.7%, and for filtered data, 5.3%.
CONCLUSION: The (18)F-FDG uptake rate constants showed excellent agreement between the two reconstruction methods. In the perfusion range up to 3.4 ml g(-1) min(-1), agreement between (13)NH(3) perfusion obtained with OSEM and FBP was acceptable. The use of OSEM for measurement of perfusion values higher than 3.4 ml g(-1) min(-1) requires further evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17033850     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0198-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  18 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling.

Authors:  R Boellaard; A van Lingen; A A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow using 13N-ammonia and reoriented dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging.

Authors:  W G Kuhle; G Porenta; S C Huang; D Buxton; S S Gambhir; H Hansen; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data.

Authors:  H M Hudson; R S Larkin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Noninvasive quantification of regional blood flow in the human heart using N-13 ammonia and dynamic positron emission tomographic imaging.

Authors:  G D Hutchins; M Schwaiger; K C Rosenspire; J Krivokapich; H Schelbert; D E Kuhl
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The ECAT EXACT HR: performance of a new high resolution positron scanner.

Authors:  K Wienhard; M Dahlbom; L Eriksson; C Michel; T Bruckbauer; U Pietrzyk; W D Heiss
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. Generalizations.

Authors:  C S Patlak; R G Blasberg
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 6.200

9.  Quantitative comparison of analytic and iterative reconstruction methods in 2- and 3-dimensional dynamic cardiac 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Mark Lubberink; Ronald Boellaard; Arno P van der Weerdt; Frans C Visser; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Validation of nitrogen-13-ammonia tracer kinetic model for quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET.

Authors:  O Muzik; R S Beanlands; G D Hutchins; T J Mangner; N Nguyen; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  9 in total

1.  Issues in quantification of cardiac PET studies.

Authors:  Hugo W A M de Jong; Mark Lubberink
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective.

Authors:  Jonathan B Moody; Benjamin C Lee; James R Corbett; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Evaluation of image reconstruction algorithms encompassing Time-Of-Flight and Point Spread Function modelling for quantitative cardiac PET: phantom studies.

Authors:  L Presotto; L Gianolli; M C Gilardi; V Bettinardi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  How to reconstruct dynamic cardiac PET data?

Authors:  Piotr J Slomka; Adam M Alessio; Guido Germano
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Direct parametric reconstruction in dynamic PET myocardial perfusion imaging: in vivo studies.

Authors:  Yoann Petibon; Yothin Rakvongthai; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Quantitative accuracy of MAP reconstruction for dynamic PET imaging in small animals.

Authors:  Ju-Chieh Kevin Cheng; Kooresh Shoghi; Richard Laforest
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Quantitative accuracy of PET/CT for image-based kinetic analysis.

Authors:  Youngho Seo; Boon-Keng Teo; Mohiuddin Hadi; Carole Schreck; Stephen L Bacharach; Bruce H Hasegawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Mark Lubberink; Fabien Hyafil; Antti Saraste; Riemer H J A Slart; Denis Agostini; Carmela Nappi; Panagiotis Georgoulias; Jan Bucerius; Christoph Rischpler; Hein J Verberne
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification.

Authors:  Jim O' Doherty; Daniel R McGowan; Carla Abreu; Sally Barrington
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 5.952

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.