Literature DB >> 35578602

System resolution versus image uncertainty for positron emission tomography scanners.

Andrej Studen1,2, Neal Clinthorne3.   

Abstract

Purpose: Quantitative measures derived from positron emission tomography (PET) images are subject to statistical uncertainty, depending critically on system parameters, including the spatial resolution of the scanner. Predictions of statistical uncertainty of quantitative measures were compared with measurements. Approach: Measurements were performed on the dual-ring PET prototype setup at the University of Michigan. The setup consisted of multiple detectors that, in combination, span a system resolution ranging between 1 and 5.5 mm full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM). A Micro Jaszczak hot-spot phantom with rod diameters between 1.2 and 4.8 mm was imaged and independently reconstructed for different detector combinations. Statistical properties of quantitative measures were evaluated for different reconstructions.
Results: Measured signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of 108 ± 14 , 85 ± 11 , and 40 ± 5 for high (0.92 to 0.98 mm FWHM), medium (1.3 to 1.5 mm FWHM), and low (5.5 mm FWHM) resolution detector configurations and 1 million events in general terms followed predications based on the detector resolution. Conclusions: The unique tomograph configuration allowed for experimental comparison of the impact of spatial resolution on statistical properties of reconstructions in the same setup. An SNR advantage in systems with high resolutions was predicted and confirmed even for object features significantly larger than the detector resolution.
© 2022 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Entities:  

Keywords:  image reconstrucion; positron emission tomography; silicon detectors

Year:  2022        PMID: 35578602      PMCID: PMC9099252          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.9.3.033501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  46 in total

1.  A modified uniform Cramer-Rao bound for multiple pinhole aperture design.

Authors:  L J Meng; N H Clinthorne
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Improving PET imaging for breast cancer using virtual pinhole PET half-ring insert.

Authors:  Aswin John Mathews; Sergey Komarov; Heyu Wu; Joseph A O'Sullivan; Yuan-Chuan Tai
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 3.609

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

Authors:  Kuang Gong; Simon R Cherry; Jinyi Qi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Virtual-pinhole PET.

Authors:  Yuan-Chuan Tai; Heyu Wu; Debashish Pal; Joseph A O'Sullivan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Centroiding algorithms for high speed crossed strip readout of microchannel plate detectors.

Authors:  John Vallerga; Anton Tremsin; Rick Raffanti; Oswald Siegmund
Journal:  Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.455

6.  The use of noise equivalent count rate and the NEMA phantom for PET image quality evaluation.

Authors:  Xin Yang; Hao Peng
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  Reliability of semiquantitative ¹⁸F-FDG PET parameters derived from simultaneous brain PET/MRI: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Amarnath Jena; Sangeeta Taneja; Reema Goel; Pushpendranath Renjen; Pradeep Negi
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  MAPS: A Quantitative Radiomics Approach for Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Andrew Cameron; Farzad Khalvati; Masoom A Haider; Alexander Wong
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 4.538

9.  Sensitivity of 18F-fluorodihydrotestosterone PET-CT to count statistics and reconstruction protocol in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthijs C F Cysouw; Gerbrand M Kramer; Dennis Heijtel; Robert C Schuit; Michael J Morris; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jens Voortman; Otto S Hoekstra; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.138

10.  A method to assess image quality for Low-dose PET: analysis of SNR, CNR, bias and image noise.

Authors:  Jianhua Yan; Josh Schaefferkoette; Maurizio Conti; David Townsend
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.