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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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