| Literature DB >> 31359208 |
Martijn M A Dietze1,2, Woutjan Branderhorst3, Britt Kunnen3,4, Max A Viergever4, Hugo W A M de Jong3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monte Carlo-based iterative reconstruction to correct for photon scatter and collimator effects has been proven to be superior over analytical correction schemes in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT), but it is currently not commonly used in daily clinical practice due to the long associated reconstruction times. We propose to use a convolutional neural network (CNN) to upgrade fast filtered back projection (FBP) image quality so that reconstructions comparable in quality to the Monte Carlo-based reconstruction can be obtained within seconds.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning; Radioembolization; Reconstruction; SPECT
Year: 2019 PMID: 31359208 PMCID: PMC6663955 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-019-0252-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Phys ISSN: 2197-7364
Fig. 1Schematic of the encoder-decoder convolutional neural network with five input slices as used in this study. Left are examples of the FBP input reconstructions and right the associated ground truth distribution
Fig. 2The anthropomorphic phantom with three extrahepatic volumes and one solid lesion and one lesion with a cold core inside the liver
Fig. 3Reconstructed image slices of a representative patient distribution from the validation set, for the four reconstruction methods and two scan times. Additionally shown is the associated ground truth distribution
Fig. 4Mean squared error for the 20 distributions in the validation set, for the four reconstructions methods and the two scan times. The asterisk denotes the reconstruction methods that were significantly different from the Monte Carlo-based reconstruction (Mann-Whitney U test at p < 0.01)
Fig. 5The difference in percent point (pp) of the LSF for the 20 distributions in the validation set, for the four reconstructions methods and the two scan times. Additionally shown are the LSFs found in the ground truth distribution. The asterisk denotes the reconstruction methods that resulted in a significantly different LSF from the Monte Carlo-based reconstruction (Mann-Whitney U test at p < 0.01)
Lung shunting fraction, uptake ratio for the spheres, and contrast-to-noise ratio for the four reconstruction methods and two scan times, together with the values as configured in the phantom
| LSF [%] | Up. 2.0 mL | Up. 4.1 mL | Up. 8.1 mL | Up. 15.7 mL | CNR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True values | 5.2 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 7.7 | – | |
| 5 min | FBP | 6.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| CLINIC | 5.1 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 5.2 | 10.3 | |
| CNN | 4.7 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 6.6 | 12.1 | |
| MC | 5.8 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 6.5 | 11.0 | |
| 20 min | FBP | 5.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| CLINIC | 4.7 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 5.1 | 10.5 | |
| CNN | 5.1 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 7.2 | 12.5 | |
| MC | 5.2 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 6.5 | 11.6 | |
Fig. 6Reconstruction slices of five representative distributions from the test set, for the four reconstruction methods