Impact of γ factor in the penalty function of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images.
BPL
BSREM
Q.Clear
Sub-centimeter lesion
β value
γ factor
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jan 2023
22 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2022
accepted:
16
01
2023
entrez:
22
1
2023
pubmed:
23
1
2023
medline:
23
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction (BPL) algorithm, Q.Clear (GE Healthcare), has recently been clinically applied to clinical image reconstruction. The BPL includes a relative difference penalty (RDP) as a penalty function. The β value that controls the behavior of RDP determines the global strength of noise suppression, whereas the γ factor in RDP controls the degree of edge preservation. The present study aimed to assess the effects of various γ factors in RDP on the ability to detect sub-centimeter lesions. All PET data were acquired for 10 min using a Discovery MI PET/CT system (GE Healthcare). We used a NEMA IEC body phantom containing spheres with inner diameters of 10, 13, 17, 22, 28 and 37 mm and 4.0, 5.0, 6.2, 7.9, 10 and 13 mm. The target-to-background ratio of the phantom was 4:1, and the background activity concentration was 5.3 kBq/mL. We also evaluated cold spheres containing only non-radioactive water with the same background activity concentration. All images were reconstructed using BPL + time of flight (TOF). The ranges of β values and γ factors in BPL were 50-600 and 2-20, respectively. We reconstructed PET images using the Duetto toolbox for MATLAB software. We calculated the % hot contrast recovery coefficient (CRC The CRC High and low γ factors, respectively, preserved the edges of reconstructed PET images and promoted image smoothing. The BPL with a γ factor above the default value in Q.Clear (γ factor = 2) generated high-resolution PET images, although image noise slightly diverged. Optimizing the β value and the γ factor in BPL enabled the detection of lesions ≤ 6.2 mm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction (BPL) algorithm, Q.Clear (GE Healthcare), has recently been clinically applied to clinical image reconstruction. The BPL includes a relative difference penalty (RDP) as a penalty function. The β value that controls the behavior of RDP determines the global strength of noise suppression, whereas the γ factor in RDP controls the degree of edge preservation. The present study aimed to assess the effects of various γ factors in RDP on the ability to detect sub-centimeter lesions.
METHODS
METHODS
All PET data were acquired for 10 min using a Discovery MI PET/CT system (GE Healthcare). We used a NEMA IEC body phantom containing spheres with inner diameters of 10, 13, 17, 22, 28 and 37 mm and 4.0, 5.0, 6.2, 7.9, 10 and 13 mm. The target-to-background ratio of the phantom was 4:1, and the background activity concentration was 5.3 kBq/mL. We also evaluated cold spheres containing only non-radioactive water with the same background activity concentration. All images were reconstructed using BPL + time of flight (TOF). The ranges of β values and γ factors in BPL were 50-600 and 2-20, respectively. We reconstructed PET images using the Duetto toolbox for MATLAB software. We calculated the % hot contrast recovery coefficient (CRC
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CRC
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
High and low γ factors, respectively, preserved the edges of reconstructed PET images and promoted image smoothing. The BPL with a γ factor above the default value in Q.Clear (γ factor = 2) generated high-resolution PET images, although image noise slightly diverged. Optimizing the β value and the γ factor in BPL enabled the detection of lesions ≤ 6.2 mm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36681994
doi: 10.1186/s40658-023-00527-w
pii: 10.1186/s40658-023-00527-w
pmc: PMC9868206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
4Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Nucl Med. 2020 Apr;34(4):272-279
pubmed: 32060780
EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Dec 30;6(1):32
pubmed: 31889228
Clin Nucl Med. 2018 May;43(5):370-371
pubmed: 29485444
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Aug;48(9):2711-2726
pubmed: 34081153
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017 Jan;4(1):011002
pubmed: 27921073
Med Phys. 2018 Jul;45(7):3214-3222
pubmed: 29782657
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Jan 10;7(1):2
pubmed: 31925574
Hell J Nucl Med. 2015 May-Aug;18(2):140-5
pubmed: 26187214
J Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;56(9):1447-52
pubmed: 26159585
Ann Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;34(10):762-771
pubmed: 32623569
J Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;48(6):932-45
pubmed: 17504879
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021 Mar;22(3):224-233
pubmed: 33683004
Ann Nucl Med. 2019 Oct;33(10):725-732
pubmed: 31236776
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):4-16
pubmed: 28687866
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Jan;28(1):67-73
pubmed: 19116189
Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):2031-2040
pubmed: 31822970
Phys Med. 2018 Aug;52:98-103
pubmed: 30139617
Sci Rep. 2021 May 14;11(1):10328
pubmed: 33990659
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1511-1518
pubmed: 28450566
Ann Nucl Med. 2021 Jun;35(6):669-679
pubmed: 33770374
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Sep 11;7(1):56
pubmed: 32915344
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003 May;22(5):613-26
pubmed: 12846430
Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Apr 25;8(2):110-118
pubmed: 29755844
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Jan 6;7(1):1
pubmed: 31907664
Eur Radiol. 2016 Feb;26(2):576-84
pubmed: 25991490
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Aug 7;60(15):5733-51
pubmed: 26158503
J Nucl Med Technol. 2018 Sep;46(3):268-273
pubmed: 29599404
Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5394-411
pubmed: 21992359
Phys Med. 2018 Mar;47:73-79
pubmed: 29609821
Ann Nucl Med. 2017 Oct;31(8):623-628
pubmed: 28689358