Literature DB >> 28660224

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

Yuji Tsutsui1, Shinichi Awamoto1, Kazuhiko Himuro1, Yoshiyuki Umezu1, Shingo Baba2, Masayuki Sasaki3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated edge artifacts in relation to phantom diameter and reconstruction parameters in point spread function (PSF)-based positron emission tomography (PET) image reconstruction.
METHODS: PET data were acquired from an original cone-shaped phantom filled with 18F solution (21.9 kBq/mL) for 10 min using a Biograph mCT scanner. The images were reconstructed using the baseline ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm and the OSEM with PSF correction model. The reconstruction parameters included a pixel size of 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 mm, 1-12 iterations, 24 subsets, and a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the post-filter Gaussian filter of 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 mm. We compared both the maximum recovery coefficient (RCmax) and the mean recovery coefficient (RCmean) in the phantom at different diameters.
RESULTS: The OSEM images had no edge artifacts, but the OSEM with PSF images had a dense edge delineating the hot phantom at diameters 10 mm or more and a dense spot at the center at diameters of 8 mm or less. The dense edge was clearly observed on images with a small pixel size, a Gaussian filter with a small FWHM, and a high number of iterations. At a phantom diameter of 6-7 mm, the RCmax for the OSEM and OSEM with PSF images was 60% and 140%, respectively (pixel size: 1.0 mm; FWHM of the Gaussian filter: 2.0 mm; iterations: 2). The RCmean of the OSEM with PSF images did not exceed 100%.
CONCLUSION: PSF-based image reconstruction resulted in edge artifacts, the degree of which depends on the pixel size, number of iterations, FWHM of the Gaussian filter, and object size.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Edge artifact; PET; Point-spread function

Year:  2017        PMID: 28660224      PMCID: PMC5482918          DOI: 10.22038/aojnmb.2017.8802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol        ISSN: 2322-5718


  18 in total

1.  Evaluation of the spatial dependence of the point spread function in 2D PET image reconstruction using LOR-OSEM.

Authors:  D Wiant; J A Gersh; M Bennett; J D Bourland
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity.

Authors:  Daisuke Kidera; Ken Kihara; Go Akamatsu; Shohei Mikasa; Takafumi Taniguchi; Yuji Tsutsui; Toshiki Takeshita; Akira Maebatake; Kenta Miwa; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.668

3.  Pragmatic fully 3D image reconstruction for the MiCES mouse imaging PET scanner.

Authors:  Kisung Lee; Paul E Kinahan; Jeffrey A Fessler; Robert S Miyaoka; Marie Janes; Tom K Lewellen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-10-07       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.  Impact of Point-Spread Function Modeling on PET Image Quality in Integrated PET/MR Hybrid Imaging.

Authors:  Bassim Aklan; Mark Oehmigen; Karsten Beiderwellen; Marcus Ruhlmann; Daniel H Paulus; Bjoern W Jakoby; Philipp Ritt; Harald H Quick
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Modeling and incorporation of system response functions in 3-D whole body PET.

Authors:  Adam M Alessio; Paul E Kinahan; Thomas K Lewellen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 10.048

7.  Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment.

Authors:  C Riddell; R E Carson; J A Carrasquillo; S K Libutti; D N Danforth; M Whatley; S L Bacharach
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 8.  PET/CT for the staging and follow-up of patients with malignancies.

Authors:  T D Poeppel; B J Krause; T A Heusner; C Boy; A Bockisch; G Antoch
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Charline Lasnon; Cédric Desmonts; Elske Quak; Radj Gervais; Pascal Do; Catherine Dubos-Arvis; Nicolas Aide
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV.

Authors:  Matthew D Kelly; Jerome M Declerck
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 3.138

View more
  3 in total

1.  Feasibility of imaging synaptic density in the human spinal cord using [11C]UCB-J PET.

Authors:  Samantha Rossano; Takuya Toyonaga; Jason Bini; Nabeel Nabulsi; Jim Ropchan; Zhengxin Cai; Yiyun Huang; Richard E Carson
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2022-05-03

2.  Can a penalized-likelihood estimation algorithm be used to reduce the injected dose or the acquisition time in 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT studies?

Authors:  Alexandre Chicheportiche; Elinor Goshen; Jeremy Godefroy; Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg; Kira Oleinikov; Amichay Meirovitz; David J Gross; Simona Ben-Haim
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2021-02-12

3.  Cross-validation study between the HRRT and the PET component of the SIGNA PET/MRI system with focus on neuroimaging.

Authors:  Julia G Mannheim; Ju-Chieh Kevin Cheng; Nasim Vafai; Elham Shahinfard; Carolyn English; Jessamyn McKenzie; Jing Zhang; Laura Barlow; Vesna Sossi
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2021-02-26
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.