Determination of optimal regularization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction of brain PET images using [
Algorithms
Alzheimer Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Aniline Compounds
/ chemistry
Bayes Theorem
Brain
/ diagnostic imaging
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Phantoms, Imaging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Positron-Emission Tomography
Thiazoles
/ chemistry
Alzheimer disease
Bayesian penalized likelihood
Q.Clear
amyloid PET
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
revised:
22
02
2022
received:
19
04
2021
accepted:
27
02
2022
pubmed:
6
3
2022
medline:
12
5
2022
entrez:
5
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) reconstruction algorithm, Q.Clear, can achieve a higher signal-to-noise ratio on images and more accurate quantitation than ordered subset-expectation maximization (OSEM). The reconstruction parameter (β) in BPL requires optimization according to the radiopharmaceutical tracer. The present study aimed to define the optimal β value in BPL required to diagnose Alzheimer disease from brain positron emission tomography (PET) images acquired using Images generated from Hoffman 3D brain and cylindrical phantoms were acquired using a Discovery PET/computed tomography (CT) 710 and reconstructed using OSEM + time-of-flight (TOF) under clinical conditions and BPL + TOF (β = 20-1000). Contrast was calculated from images generated by the Hoffman 3D brain phantom, and noise and uniformity were calculated from those generated by the cylindrical phantom. Five cognitively healthy controls and five patients with Alzheimer disease were assessed using [ The contrast in BPL satisfied the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine (JSNM) criterion of ≥55% and exceeded that of OSEM at ranges of β = 20-450 and 20-600 for [ The BPL achieved better image contrast and less image noise than OSEM, while maintaining quantitative standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) due to full convergence, more rigorous noise control, and edge preservation. The optimal β values for [
Substances chimiques
2-(4'-(methylamino)phenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothiazole
0
Aniline Compounds
0
Thiazoles
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2995-3005Subventions
Organisme : JSPS KAKENHI
ID : JP20K16747
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Bohnen NI, Koeppe RA, Minoshima S, et al. Cerebral glucose metabolic features of Parkinson disease and incident dementia: longitudinal study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(6):848-855.
Herholz K, Westwood S, Haense C, Dunn G. Evaluation of a calibrated (18)F-FDG PET score as a biomarker for progression in Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(8):1218-1226.
Minoshima S, Giordan B, Berent S, Frey KA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 1997;42(1):85-94.
Landau SM, Breault C, Joshi AD, et al. Amyloid-beta imaging with Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir: comparing radiotracers and quantification methods. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(1):70-77.
Rowe CC, Villemagne VL. Brain amyloid imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013;41(1):11-18.
Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Nishio T, et al. Optimization of image reconstruction conditions with phantoms for brain FDG and amyloid PET imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(1):18-28.
Joshi A, Koeppe RA, Fessler JA. Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies. Neuroimage. 2009;46(1):154-159.
Prieto E, Marti-Climent JM, Moran V, et al. Brain PET imaging optimization with time of flight and point spread function modelling. Phys Med. 2015;31(8):948-955.
Minoshima S, Drzezga AE, Djekidel M, et al. SNMMI procedure standard/EANM practice guideline for amyloid PET imaging of the brain 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(8):1316-1322.
Varrone A, Asenbaum S, Vander Borght T, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for PET brain imaging using [18F]FDG, version 2. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(12):2103-2110.
Waxman AD, Herholz K, Lewis DH, et al. Society of Nuclear Medicine Procedure Guideline for FDG PET Brain Imaging. Version 1.0. 2009:1-12.
Yamane T, Ishii K, Sakata M, et al. Inter-rater variability of visual interpretation and comparison with quantitative evaluation of (11)C-PiB PET amyloid images of the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI) multicenter study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(5):850-857.
Iwatsubo T. Japanese Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative: present status and future. Alzheimers Dement. 2010;6(3):297-299.
Iwatsubo T, Iwata A, Suzuki K, et al. Japanese and North American Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative studies: harmonization for international trials. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(8):1077-1087.
Jagust WJ, Bandy D, Chen K, et al. The Alzheimer's Disease neuroimaging initiative positron emission tomography core. Alzheimers Dement. 2010;6(3):221-229.
Hoffman EJCP, Guerrero TM, et al. Assessment of accuracy of PET utilizing a 3-D phantom to simulate the activity distribution of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1991;11:A17-A25.
Ikari Y, Akamatsu G, Nishio T, et al. Phantom criteria for qualification of brain FDG and amyloid PET across different cameras. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):23.
Hsu DFC, Ilan E, Peterson WT, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin CS. Studies of a next-generation silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(9):1511-1518.
Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Sakata M, et al. Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT. Phys Med. 2017;42:203-210.
Ahn S, Ross SG, Asma E, et al. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(15):5733-5751.
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1447-1452.
Te Riet J, Rijnsdorp S, Roef MJ, Arends AJ. Evaluation of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for low-count clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6(1):32.
Aljared A, Alharbi AA, Huellner MW. BSREM reconstruction for improved detection of in-transit metastases with digital FDG-PET/CT in patients with malignant melanoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43(5):370-371.
Miwa K, Wagatsuma K, Nemoto R, et al. Detection of sub-centimeter lesions using digital TOF-PET/CT system combined with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34(10):762-771.
Lindstrom E, Sundin A, Trampal C, et al. Evaluation of penalized-likelihood estimation reconstruction on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner for (18)F-FDG whole-body examinations. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(7):1152-1158.
Howard BA, Morgan R, Thorpe MP, et al. Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31(8):623-628.
Wangerin KA, Ahn S, Wollenweber S, Ross SG, Kinahan PE, Manjeshwar RM. Evaluation of lesion detectability in positron emission tomography when using a convergent penalized likelihood image reconstruction method. J Med Imaging. 2017;4(1):011002.
Reynés-Llompart G, Gamez-Cenzano C, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sabate-Llobera A, Calvo-Malvar N, Marti-Climent JM. Phantom, clinical, and texture indices evaluation and optimization of a penalized-likelihood image reconstruction method (Q.Clear) on a BGO PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 2018;45(7):3214-3222.
Shkumat NA, Vali R, Shammas A. Clinical evaluation of reconstruction and acquisition time for pediatric (18)F-FDG brain PET using digital PET/CT. Pediatr Radiol. 2020;50(7):966-972.
Yoshii T, Miwa K, Yamaguchi M, et al. Optimization of a Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm (Q.Clear) for (18)F-NaF bone PET/CT images acquired over shorter durations using a custom-designed phantom. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):56.
Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):5394-5411.
O' Doherty J, McGowan DR, Abreu C, Barrington S. Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24(1):282-290.
Asma E, Ahn S, Ross SG, Chen A, Manjeshwar RM, Accurate and consistent lesion quantitation with clinically acceptable penalized likelihood images. In: 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2012:4062-4066.
Nuyts J, Bequ´e D, Dupont P, Mortelmans L. A concave prior penalizing relative differences for maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49(1):56-60.
Rogasch JM, Suleiman S, Hofheinz F, et al. Reconstructed spatial resolution and contrast recovery with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) for FDG-PET compared to time-of-flight (TOF) with point spread function (PSF). EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):2.
Texte E, Gouel P, Thureau S, et al. Impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm (Q.Clear(R)) in comparison with the OSEM reconstruction on low contrast PET hypoxic images. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):28.
Ribeiro D, Hallett W, Tavares AAS. Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies. EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8(1):41.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):11S-20S.
Lindstrom E, Oddstig J, Danfors T, Jogi J, Hansson O, Lubberink M. Image reconstruction methods affect software-aided assessment of pathologies of [(18)F]flutemetamol and [(18)F]FDG brain-PET examinations in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroimage Clin. 2020;28:102386.
Ahn S, Fessler JA. Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 2003;22(5):1-15.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163.
Rowley LM, Bradley KM, Boardman P, Hallam A, McGowan DR. Optimization of image reconstruction for (90)Y selective internal radiotherapy on a lutetium yttrium orthosilicate PET/CT system using a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(4):658-664.
Scott NP, McGowan DR. Optimising quantitative (90)Y PET imaging: an investigation into the effects of scan length and Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9(1):40.
Murata T, Miwa K, Miyaji N, et al. Evaluation of spatial dependence of point spread function-based PET reconstruction using a traceable point-like (22)Na source. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):26.
Verwer EE, Golla SSV, Kaalep A, et al. Harmonisation of PET/CT contrast recovery performance for brain studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(9):2856-2870.