Yuji Tsutsui1, Shinichi Awamoto1, Kazuhiko Himuro1, Yoshiyuki Umezu1, Shingo Baba2, Masayuki Sasaki3. 1. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan. 2. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
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.
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
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
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
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