BACKGROUND: To perform kinetic modelling quantification, PET dynamic data must be acquired in short frames, where different critical conditions are met. The accuracy of reconstructed images influences quantification. The added value of Time-Of-Flight (TOF) and Point Spread Function (PSF) in cardiac image reconstruction was assessed. METHODS: A static phantom was used to simulate two extreme conditions: (i) the bolus passage and (ii) the steady uptake. Various count statistics and independent noise realisations were considered. A moving phantom filled with two different radionuclides was used to simulate: (i) a great range of contrasts and (ii) the cardio/respiratory motion. Analytical and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms also encompassing TOF and PSF modelling were evaluated. RESULTS: Both analytic and IR algorithms provided good results in all the evaluated conditions. The amount of bias introduced by IR was found to be limited. TOF allowed faster convergence and lower noise levels. PSF achieved near full myocardial activity recovery in static conditions. Motion degraded performances, but the addition of both TOF and PSF maintained the best overall behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: IR accounting for TOF and PSF can be recommended for the quantification of dynamic cardiac PET studies as they improve the results compared to analytic and standard IR.
BACKGROUND: To perform kinetic modelling quantification, PET dynamic data must be acquired in short frames, where different critical conditions are met. The accuracy of reconstructed images influences quantification. The added value of Time-Of-Flight (TOF) and Point Spread Function (PSF) in cardiac image reconstruction was assessed. METHODS: A static phantom was used to simulate two extreme conditions: (i) the bolus passage and (ii) the steady uptake. Various count statistics and independent noise realisations were considered. A moving phantom filled with two different radionuclides was used to simulate: (i) a great range of contrasts and (ii) the cardio/respiratory motion. Analytical and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms also encompassing TOF and PSF modelling were evaluated. RESULTS: Both analytic and IR algorithms provided good results in all the evaluated conditions. The amount of bias introduced by IR was found to be limited. TOF allowed faster convergence and lower noise levels. PSF achieved near full myocardial activity recovery in static conditions. Motion degraded performances, but the addition of both TOF and PSF maintained the best overall behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: IR accounting for TOF and PSF can be recommended for the quantification of dynamic cardiac PET studies as they improve the results compared to analytic and standard IR.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Fiechter; Jelena R Ghadri; Cathérine Gebhard; Tobias A Fuchs; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Rene N Nkoulou; Bernhard A Herzog; Christophe A Wyss; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maurizio Conti; Bernard Bendriem; Mike Casey; Mu Chen; Frank Kehren; Christian Michel; Vladimir Panin Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ludovic Le Meunier; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey; Amit Ramesh; Louis E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Victor Cheng; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Adam M Alessio; Steve Kohlmyer; Kelley Branch; Grace Chen; James Caldwell; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Patrick T Siegrist; Fabian M Tay; Nina Burkhard; Christophe A Wyss; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
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