Literature DB >> 22952340

Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters.

Go Akamatsu1, Kaori Ishikawa, Katsuhiko Mitsumoto, Takafumi Taniguchi, Nobuyoshi Ohya, Shingo Baba, Koichiro Abe, Masayuki Sasaki.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the point-spread function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) on improving (18)F-FDG PET/CT images in relation to reconstruction parameters and noise-equivalent counts (NEC).
METHODS: This study consisted of a phantom study and a retrospective analysis of 39 consecutive patients who underwent clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT. The body phantom of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and International Electrotechnical Commission with a 10-mm-diameter sphere was filled with an (18)F-FDG solution with a 4:1 radioactivity ratio compared with the background. The PET data were reconstructed with the baseline ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm, with the OSEM+PSF model, with the OSEM+TOF model, and with the OSEM+PSF+TOF model. We evaluated image quality by visual assessment, the signal-to-noise ratio of the 10-mm sphere (SNR(10 mm)), the contrast of the 10-mm sphere, and the coefficient of variance in the phantom study and then determined the optimal reconstruction parameters. We also examined the effects of PSF and TOF on the quality of clinical images using the signal-to-noise ratio in the liver (SNR(liver)) in relation to the NEC in the liver (NEC(liver)).
RESULTS: In the phantom study, the SNR(10 mm) was the highest for the OSEM+PSF+TOF model, and the highest value was obtained at iteration 2 for algorithms with the TOF and at iteration 3 for those without the TOF. In terms of a postsmoothing filter full width at half maximum (FWHM), the high SNR(10 mm) was obtained with no filtering or was smaller than 2 mm for algorithms with PSF and was 4-6 mm for those without PSF. The balance between the contrast recovery and noise is different for algorithms with either PSF or TOF. A combination of PSF and TOF improved SNR(10 mm), contrast, and coefficient of variance, especially with a small-FWHM gaussian filter. In the clinical study, the SNR(liver) of the low-NEC(liver) group in the OSEM+PSF+TOF model was compared with that of the high-NEC(liver) group in conventional OSEM. The PSF+TOF improved the SNR(liver) by about 24.9% ± 9.81%.
CONCLUSION: A combination of PSF and TOF clearly improves image quality, whereas optimization of the reconstruction parameters is necessary to obtain the best performance for PSF or TOF. Furthermore, this combination has the potential to provide good image quality with either lower activity or shorter acquisition time, thus improving patient comfort and reducing the radiation burden.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22952340     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  53 in total

1.  Effects of point spread function-based image reconstruction on neuroreceptor binding in positron emission tomography study with [(11)C]FLB 457.

Authors:  Thonnapong Thongpraparn; Yoko Ikoma; Takahiro Shiraishi; Taiga Yamaya; Hiroshi Ito
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-12-16

2.  Comparative analysis of iterative reconstruction algorithms with resolution recovery and time of flight modeling for 18F-FDG cardiac PET: A multi-center phantom study.

Authors:  Roberta Matheoud; Michela Lecchi; Domenico Lizio; Camilla Scabbio; Claudio Marcassa; Lucia Leva; Angelo Del Sole; Carlo Rodella; Luca Indovina; Christian Bracco; Marco Brambilla; Orazio Zoccarato
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Noise propagation in resolution modeled PET imaging and its impact on detectability.

Authors:  Arman Rahmim; Jing Tang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls.

Authors:  Arman Rahmim; Jinyi Qi; Vesna Sossi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with ¹⁸F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems?

Authors:  Dimitri Bellevre; Cécile Blanc Fournier; Odile Switsers; Audrey Emmanuelle Dugué; Christelle Levy; Djelila Allouache; Cédric Desmonts; Hubert Crouet; Jean-Marc Guilloit; Jean-Michel Grellard; Nicolas Aide
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Status of cardiovascular PET radiation exposure and strategies for reduction: An Information Statement from the Cardiovascular PET Task Force.

Authors:  James A Case; Robert A deKemp; Piotr J Slomka; Mark F Smith; Gary V Heller; Manuel D Cerqueira
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Understanding the impact of advanced PET reconstruction in cardiac PET: The devil is in the details.

Authors:  Ian S Armstrong
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Edge Artifacts in Point Spread Function-based PET Reconstruction in Relation to Object Size and Reconstruction Parameters.

Authors:  Yuji Tsutsui; Shinichi Awamoto; Kazuhiko Himuro; Yoshiyuki Umezu; Shingo Baba; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2017

9.  Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors.

Authors:  Ali Ketabi; Pardis Ghafarian; Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi; Seyed Rabi Mahdavi; Arman Rahmim; Mohammad Reza Ay
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.