OBJECTIVE: We evaluate a fully data-driven method for the combined recovery and motion blur correction of small solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) in F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). METHODS: The SPN was segmented in the low-dose CT using a variable Hounsfield threshold and morphological constraints. The combined effect of limited spatial resolution and motion blur in the SPN's PET image was then modelled by an effective Gaussian point-spread function (psf). Both isotropic and non-isotropic psfs were used. To validate the method, PET/CT measurements of the NEMA/IEC spheres phantom were performed. The method was applied to 50 unselected SPNs <or=30 mm from routine patient care. RESULTS: Recovery of standardised uptake value (SUV) in the phantom image was significantly improved by combined recovery and motion blur correction compared with recovery-only correction, particularly with the non-isotropic model (residual average error 10%). In the patient images, automated segmentation and fit of the effective psf worked properly in all cases. Volume-equivalent diameter ranged from 4.9 to 27.8 mm. Uncorrected maximum SUV ranged from 0.9 to 13.3. Compared with recovery-only correction, combined correction with the non-isotropic model resulted in a 'relevant' (>or=30%) SUV increase in 47 SPNs (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Correction of both recovery and motion blur is mandatory for accurate SUV quantification of SPNs.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluate a fully data-driven method for the combined recovery and motion blur correction of small solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) in F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). METHODS: The SPN was segmented in the low-dose CT using a variable Hounsfield threshold and morphological constraints. The combined effect of limited spatial resolution and motion blur in the SPN's PET image was then modelled by an effective Gaussian point-spread function (psf). Both isotropic and non-isotropic psfs were used. To validate the method, PET/CT measurements of the NEMA/IEC spheres phantom were performed. The method was applied to 50 unselected SPNs <or=30 mm from routine patient care. RESULTS: Recovery of standardised uptake value (SUV) in the phantom image was significantly improved by combined recovery and motion blur correction compared with recovery-only correction, particularly with the non-isotropic model (residual average error 10%). In the patient images, automated segmentation and fit of the effective psf worked properly in all cases. Volume-equivalent diameter ranged from 4.9 to 27.8 mm. Uncorrected maximum SUV ranged from 0.9 to 13.3. Compared with recovery-only correction, combined correction with the non-isotropic model resulted in a 'relevant' (>or=30%) SUV increase in 47 SPNs (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Correction of both recovery and motion blur is mandatory for accurate SUV quantification of SPNs.
Authors: N Avril; S Bense; S I Ziegler; J Dose; W Weber; C Laubenbacher; W Römer; F Jänicke; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sadek A Nehmeh; Yusuf E Erdi; Gustavo S P Meirelles; Olivia Squire; Steven M Larson; John L Humm; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gerhard W Goerres; Ehab Kamel; Burkhardt Seifert; Cyrill Burger; Alfred Buck; Thomas F Hany; Gustav K Von Schulthess Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sang-June Park; Dan Ionascu; Joseph Killoran; Marcelo Mamede; Victor H Gerbaudo; Lee Chin; Ross Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Suk Chul Kim; Suk C Kim; Josef Machac; Borys R Krynyckyi; Karin Knesaurek; Daniel Krellenstein; Barbara Schultz; Allen Gribetz; Louis DePalo; Alvin Teirstein; Chun K Kim Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Kishor Karki; Siddharth Saraiya; Geoffrey D Hugo; Nitai Mukhopadhyay; Nuzhat Jan; Jessica Schuster; Matthew Schutzer; Lester Fahrner; Robert Groves; Kathryn M Olsen; John C Ford; Elisabeth Weiss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-05-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Helmut Prosch; Christian J Herold; Michael Weber; Georgios Karanikas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fernando E Boada; Thomas Koesters; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Héctor Espinós-Morató; David Cascales-Picó; Marina Vergara; Ángel Hernández-Martínez; José María Benlloch Baviera; María José Rodríguez-Álvarez Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Laure Fournier; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Daniele Regge; Daniela-Elena Oprea-Lager; Melvin D'Anastasi; Luc Bidaut; Tobias Bäuerle; Egesta Lopci; Giovanni Cappello; Frederic Lecouvet; Marius Mayerhoefer; Wolfgang G Kunz; Joost J C Verhoeff; Damiano Caruso; Marion Smits; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Regina Beets-Tan; Emanuele Neri; Nandita M deSouza; Christophe M Deroose; Caroline Caramella Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 6.244