Literature DB >> 26864088

On the assessment of spatial resolution of PET systems with iterative image reconstruction.

Kuang Gong1, Simon R Cherry, Jinyi Qi.   

Abstract

Spatial resolution is an important metric for performance characterization in PET systems. Measuring spatial resolution is straightforward with a linear reconstruction algorithm, such as filtered backprojection, and can be performed by reconstructing a point source scan and calculating the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) along the principal directions. With the widespread adoption of iterative reconstruction methods, it is desirable to quantify the spatial resolution using an iterative reconstruction algorithm. However, the task can be difficult because the reconstruction algorithms are nonlinear and the non-negativity constraint can artificially enhance the apparent spatial resolution if a point source image is reconstructed without any background. Thus, it was recommended that a background should be added to the point source data before reconstruction for resolution measurement. However, there has been no detailed study on the effect of the point source contrast on the measured spatial resolution. Here we use point source scans from a preclinical PET scanner to investigate the relationship between measured spatial resolution and the point source contrast. We also evaluate whether the reconstruction of an isolated point source is predictive of the ability of the system to resolve two adjacent point sources. Our results indicate that when the point source contrast is below a certain threshold, the measured FWHM remains stable. Once the contrast is above the threshold, the measured FWHM monotonically decreases with increasing point source contrast. In addition, the measured FWHM also monotonically decreases with iteration number for maximum likelihood estimate. Therefore, when measuring system resolution with an iterative reconstruction algorithm, we recommend using a low-contrast point source and a fixed number of iterations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26864088      PMCID: PMC4890626          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/5/N193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  24 in total

1.  Effect of anatomical variability, reconstruction algorithms and scattered photons on the SPM output of brain PET studies.

Authors:  P Aguiar; D Pareto; J D Gispert; C Crespo; C Falcón; A Cot; F Lomeña; J Pavía; D Ros
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  A practical, automated quality assurance method for measuring spatial resolution in PET.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Arman Rahmim; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Impact of respiratory motion correction and spatial resolution on lesion detection in PET: a simulation study based on real MR dynamic data.

Authors:  Irene Polycarpou; Charalampos Tsoumpas; Andrew P King; Paul K Marsden
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Influence of the partial volume correction method on (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose brain kinetic modelling from dynamic PET images reconstructed with resolution model based OSEM.

Authors:  Spencer L Bowen; Larry G Byars; Christian J Michel; Daniel B Chonde; Ciprian Catana
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  The convergence of object dependent resolution in maximum likelihood based tomographic image reconstruction.

Authors:  J S Liow; S C Strother
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner.

Authors:  T R DeGrado; T G Turkington; J J Williams; C W Stearns; J M Hoffman; R E Coleman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  PET optimization for improved assessment and accurate quantification of 90Y-microsphere biodistribution after radioembolization.

Authors:  Josep M Martí-Climent; Elena Prieto; César Elosúa; Macarena Rodríguez-Fraile; Inés Domínguez-Prado; Carmen Vigil; María J García-Velloso; Javier Arbizu; Iván Peñuelas; José A Richter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Improving PET spatial resolution and detectability for prostate cancer imaging.

Authors:  H Bal; L Guerin; M E Casey; M Conti; L Eriksson; C Michel; S Fanti; C Pettinato; S Adler; P Choyke
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Optimization and performance evaluation of the microPET II scanner for in vivo small-animal imaging.

Authors:  Yongfeng Yang; Yuan-Chuan Tai; Stefan Siegel; Danny F Newport; Bing Bai; Quanzheng Li; Richard M Leahy; Simon R Cherry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-06-21       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Performance evaluation of an Inveon PET preclinical scanner.

Authors:  Cristian C Constantinescu; Jogeshwar Mukherjee
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  18 in total

1.  Regularization parameter selection for penalized-likelihood list-mode image reconstruction in PET.

Authors:  Mengxi Zhang; Jian Zhou; Xiaofeng Niu; Evren Asma; Wenli Wang; Jinyi Qi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Sinogram Blurring Matrix Estimation From Point Sources Measurements With Rank-One Approximation for Fully 3-D PET.

Authors:  Kuang Gong; Jian Zhou; Michel Tohme; Martin Judenhofer; Yongfeng Yang; Jinyi Qi
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Preclinical positron emission tomography scanner based on a monolithic annulus of scintillator: initial design study.

Authors:  Alexander V Stolin; Peter F Martone; Gangadhar Jaliparthi; Raymond R Raylman
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-01-05

4.  Design of a dual-resolution collimator for preclinical cardiac SPECT with a stationary triple-detector system.

Authors:  Stephen C Moore; Mi-Ae Park; Zhe Liu; Morgan C Lyon; Lindsay C Johnson; Victor H Lushear; James G Westberg; Scott D Metzler
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Measuring PET Spatial Resolution Using a Cylinder Phantom Positioned at an Oblique Angle.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Jeffrey P Leal; Arman Rahmim; John J Sunderland; Eric C Frey
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  The impact of iterative reconstruction protocol, signal-to-background ratio and background activity on measurement of PET spatial resolution.

Authors:  Sahar Rezaei; Pardis Ghafarian; Mehrdad Bakhshayesh-Karam; Carlos F Uribe; Arman Rahmim; Saeed Sarkar; Mohammad Reza Ay
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Performance Simulation of an Ultra-High Resolution Brain PET Scanner Using 1.2-mm Pixel Detectors.

Authors:  Émilie Gaudin; Maxime Toussaint; Christian Thibaudeau; Maxime Paillé; Réjean Fontaine; Roger Lecomte
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-23

8.  System resolution versus image uncertainty for positron emission tomography scanners.

Authors:  Andrej Studen; Neal Clinthorne
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-05-13

9.  Performance evaluation of the mouse version of the LabPET II PET scanner.

Authors:  Émilie Gaudin; Christian Thibaudeau; Louis Arpin; Jean-Daniel Leroux; Maxime Toussaint; Jean-Francois Beaudoin; Jules Cadorette; Maxime Paillé; Catherine M Pepin; Konin Koua; Jonathan Bouchard; Nicolas Viscogliosi; Caroline Paulin; Réjean Fontaine; Roger Lecomte
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  H2RSPET: a 0.5 mm resolution high-sensitivity small-animal PET scanner, a simulation study.

Authors:  Youfang Lai; Qian Wang; Shiwei Zhou; Zhaoheng Xie; Jinyi Qi; Simon R Cherry; Mingwu Jin; Yujie Chi; Junwei Du
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.