Ahmadreza Rezaei1, Christophe M Deroose2, Thomas Vahle3, Fernando Boada4, Johan Nuyts2. 1. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium ahmadreza.rezaei@uz.kuleuven.be. 2. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany; and. 4. New York University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
Methods for joint activity reconstruction and attenuation reconstruction of time-of-flight (TOF) PET data provide an effective solution to attenuation correction when no (or incomplete or inaccurate) information on attenuation is available. One of the main barriers limiting use of these methods in clinical practice is their lack of validation in a relatively large patient database. In this contribution, we aim to validate reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity reconstruction and attenuation registration (MLRR) in a whole-body patient dataset. Furthermore, a partial validation (because the scale problem of the algorithm is avoided for now) of reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity and attenuation (MLAA) is also provided. We present a quantitative comparison between these 2 methods of joint reconstruction and the current clinical gold standard, maximum-likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) with CT-based attenuation correction. Methods: The whole-body TOF PET emission data of each patient dataset were processed as a whole to reconstruct an activity volume covering all the acquired bed positions, helping reduce the problem of a scale per bed position in MLAA to a global scale for the entire activity volume. Three reconstruction algorithms were used: MLEM, MLRR, and MLAA. A maximum-likelihood scaling of the single-scatter simulation estimate to the emission data was used for scatter correction. The reconstruction results for various regions of interest were then analyzed. Results: The joint reconstructions of the whole-body patient dataset provided better quantification than the gold standard in cases of PET and CT misalignment caused by patient or organ motion. Our quantitative analysis showed a difference of -4.2% ± 2.3% between MLRR and MLEM and a difference of -7.5% ± 4.6% between MLAA and MLEM, averaged over all regions of interest. Conclusion: Joint reconstruction of activity and attenuation provides a useful means to estimate tracer distribution when CT-based-attenuation images are subject to misalignment or are not available. With an accurate estimate of the scatter contribution in the emission measurements, the joint reconstructions of TOF PET data are within clinically acceptable accuracy.
Methods for joint activity reconstruction and attenuation reconstruction of time-of-flight (TOF) PET data provide an effective solution to attenuation correction when no (or incomplete or inaccurate) information on attenuation is available. One of the main barriers limiting use of these methods in clinical practice is their lack of validation in a relatively large patient database. In this contribution, we aim to validate reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity reconstruction and attenuation registration (MLRR) in a whole-body patient dataset. Furthermore, a partial validation (because the scale problem of the algorithm is avoided for now) of reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity and attenuation (MLAA) is also provided. We present a quantitative comparison between these 2 methods of joint reconstruction and the current clinical gold standard, maximum-likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) with CT-based attenuation correction. Methods: The whole-body TOF PET emission data of each patient dataset were processed as a whole to reconstruct an activity volume covering all the acquired bed positions, helping reduce the problem of a scale per bed position in MLAA to a global scale for the entire activity volume. Three reconstruction algorithms were used: MLEM, MLRR, and MLAA. A maximum-likelihood scaling of the single-scatter simulation estimate to the emission data was used for scatter correction. The reconstruction results for various regions of interest were then analyzed. Results: The joint reconstructions of the whole-body patient dataset provided better quantification than the gold standard in cases of PET and CT misalignment caused by patient or organ motion. Our quantitative analysis showed a difference of -4.2% ± 2.3% between MLRR and MLEM and a difference of -7.5% ± 4.6% between MLAA and MLEM, averaged over all regions of interest. Conclusion: Joint reconstruction of activity and attenuation provides a useful means to estimate tracer distribution when CT-based-attenuation images are subject to misalignment or are not available. With an accurate estimate of the scatter contribution in the emission measurements, the joint reconstructions of TOF PET data are within clinically acceptable accuracy.
Authors: André Salomon; Andreas Goedicke; Bernd Schweizer; Til Aach; Volkmar Schulz Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Ahmadreza Rezaei; Michel Defrise; Girish Bal; Christian Michel; Maurizio Conti; Charles Watson; Johan Nuyts Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Harold Rothfuss; Vladimir Panin; Andrew Moor; John Young; Inki Hong; Christian Michel; James Hamill; Michael Casey Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ahmadreza Rezaei; Georg Schramm; Stefanie M A Willekens; Gaspar Delso; Koen Van Laere; Johan Nuyts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yasheng Chen; Chunwei Ying; Michael M Binkley; Meher R Juttukonda; Shaney Flores; Richard Laforest; Tammie L S Benzinger; Hongyu An Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Steven R Meikle; Vesna Sossi; Emilie Roncali; Simon R Cherry; Richard Banati; David Mankoff; Terry Jones; Michelle James; Julie Sutcliffe; Jinsong Ouyang; Yoann Petibon; Chao Ma; Georges El Fakhri; Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp; Ramsey D Badawi; Taiga Yamaya; Go Akamatsu; Georg Schramm; Ahmadreza Rezaei; Johan Nuyts; Roger Fulton; André Kyme; Cristina Lois; Hasan Sari; Julie Price; Ronald Boellaard; Robert Jeraj; Dale L Bailey; Enid Eslick; Kathy P Willowson; Joyita Dutta Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Takuya Toyonaga; Dan Shao; Luyao Shi; Jiazhen Zhang; Enette Mae Revilla; David Menard; Joseph Ankrah; Kenji Hirata; Ming-Kai Chen; John A Onofrey; Yihuan Lu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 10.057