Optimization of reconstruction in quantitative brain PET images: Benefits from PSF modeling and correction of edge artifacts.
PSF correction
SUV
quantification
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Sep 2024
18 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
05
09
2024
received:
07
04
2024
accepted:
05
09
2024
medline:
18
9
2024
pubmed:
18
9
2024
entrez:
18
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Modern PET reconstruction algorithms incorporate point-spread-function (PSF) correction to mitigate partial volume effect. However, PSF correction can introduce edge artifacts that lead to quantification errors. Consequently, current international guidelines advise against using PSF correction in brain PET reconstruction. We aimed to investigate PSF-induced quantification errors in recent digital PET systems and identify conditions that mitigate them. This study utilized brain PET imaging with alginate-based realistic phantoms, simulating lesion-to-background activity ratios of 10:1 and 2:1, with eleven reconstruction parameter sets. Phantoms were prepared using a commercial anthropomorphic head phantom and two homemade inserts. Each insert contained a homogeneous PSF-corrected images of the 10:1 spheres exhibited a nonmonotonic CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship due to edge artifacts overshoot in the 10 mm-diameter sphere. In contrast, PSF images of the 2:1 spheres showed a monotonically increasing relationship. Non-PSF images of both phantoms showed an expected monotonically increasing CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship but with lower CRC values compared to PSF images. The nonmonotonic relationship observed with 10:1 spheres was mitigated by applying a 3-mm FWHM Gaussian postfiltering. For both phantoms, reconstructions with 6 iterations, PSF correction, and additional 3-mm FWHM Gaussian postfiltering demonstrated the highest CRC-to-variability ratios. Our findings indicate that Gaussian postfiltering suppresses PSF artifacts. This parameter set corrected the nonmonotonic CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship and improved the CRC-to-variability ratio compared to non-PSF reconstructions. Therefore, to enhance lesion detectability without compromising quantification accuracy, PSF correction coupled with Gaussian postfiltering should be used in brain PET.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Modern PET reconstruction algorithms incorporate point-spread-function (PSF) correction to mitigate partial volume effect. However, PSF correction can introduce edge artifacts that lead to quantification errors. Consequently, current international guidelines advise against using PSF correction in brain PET reconstruction.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to investigate PSF-induced quantification errors in recent digital PET systems and identify conditions that mitigate them. This study utilized brain PET imaging with alginate-based realistic phantoms, simulating lesion-to-background activity ratios of 10:1 and 2:1, with eleven reconstruction parameter sets.
METHODS
METHODS
Phantoms were prepared using a commercial anthropomorphic head phantom and two homemade inserts. Each insert contained a homogeneous
RESULTS
RESULTS
PSF-corrected images of the 10:1 spheres exhibited a nonmonotonic CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship due to edge artifacts overshoot in the 10 mm-diameter sphere. In contrast, PSF images of the 2:1 spheres showed a monotonically increasing relationship. Non-PSF images of both phantoms showed an expected monotonically increasing CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship but with lower CRC values compared to PSF images. The nonmonotonic relationship observed with 10:1 spheres was mitigated by applying a 3-mm FWHM Gaussian postfiltering. For both phantoms, reconstructions with 6 iterations, PSF correction, and additional 3-mm FWHM Gaussian postfiltering demonstrated the highest CRC-to-variability ratios.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that Gaussian postfiltering suppresses PSF artifacts. This parameter set corrected the nonmonotonic CRC-to-sphere diameter relationship and improved the CRC-to-variability ratio compared to non-PSF reconstructions. Therefore, to enhance lesion detectability without compromising quantification accuracy, PSF correction coupled with Gaussian postfiltering should be used in brain PET.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011;648(1):S236‐S240. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.092
van Sluis JJ, de Jong J, Schaar J, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital Biograph Vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(7):1031‐1036. doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.215418
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial‐volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932‐945. doi:10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
Hofheinz F, Dittrich S, Pötzsch C, van den Hoff J. Effects of cold sphere walls in PET phantom measurements on the volume reproducing threshold. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(4):1099‐1113. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/55/4/013
Bettinardi V, Castiglioni I, De Bernardi E, Gilardi MC. PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(3):199‐218. doi:10.1007/s40336‐014‐0066‐y
Orlandini LC, Betti M, Fulcheri C, Dona M, Fisicaro D, Castagnoli A. Improvement in clinical evaluation of PET/CT images with high resolution algorithms. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;57(2):201‐206.
Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3‐D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25(7):907‐921. doi:10.1109/tmi.2006.876171
Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40(6):064301. doi:10.1118/1.4800806
Sureau FC, Reader AJ, Comtat C, et al. Impact of image‐space resolution modeling for studies with the high‐resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(6):1000‐1008. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.045351
Lee YS, Kim JS, Kim KM, Kang JH, Lim SM, Kim HJ. Performance measurement of PSF modeling reconstruction (True X) on Siemens Biograph TruePoint TrueV PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28(4):340‐348. doi:10.1007/s12149‐014‐0815‐z
Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF‐based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(5):1453. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/55/5/013
Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):862‐869. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.015
Sheikhbahaei S, Marcus C, Wray R, Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Subramaniam RM. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F‐FDG‐PET/CT imaging parameters and inter‐reader reproducibility in solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(3):288‐296. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000445
Thielemans K, Asma E, Ahn S, et al. Impact of PSF modelling on the convergence rate and edge behaviour of EM images in PET. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium & Medical Imaging Conference. 2010:3267‐3272. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2010.5874409
Munk OL, Tolbod LP, Hansen SB, Bogsrud TV. Point‐spread function reconstructed PET images of sub‐centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(1):5. doi:10.1186/s40658‐016‐0169‐9
Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G, et al. The edge artifact in the point‐spread function‐based PET reconstruction at different sphere‐to‐background ratios of radioactivity. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(2):97‐103. doi:10.1007/s12149‐015‐1036‐9
Tsutsui Y, Awamoto S, Himuro K, Umezu Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Edge artifacts in point spread function‐based PET reconstruction in relation to object size and reconstruction parameters. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2017;5(2):134‐143. doi:10.22038/aojnmb.2017.8802
Ptáček J, Karhan P, Fiala P. Optimal reconstruction matrix and PET image filtration for point‐spread function and time‐of‐flight reconstruction—a phantom study. Phys Med. 2017;39:95‐99. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.002
NEMA Standards Publication NU 2‐2018: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, Virginia, USA. 2018.
Berthon B, Marshall C, Edwards A, et al. Influence of cold walls on PET image quantification and volume segmentation: a phantom study. Med Phys. 2013;40(8):082505. doi:10.1118/1.4813302
Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, et al. Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3):540‐557. doi:10.1007/s00259‐018‐4207‐9
Guedj E, Varrone A, Boellaard R, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [18F]FDG, version 3. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):632‐651. doi:10.1007/s00259‐021‐05603‐w
Zidan MA, Hassan RS, El‐Noueam KI, Zakaria YM. Brain metastases assessment by FDG‐PET/CT: can it eliminate the necessity for dedicated brain imaging?. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2020;51(1):223. doi:10.1186/s43055‐020‐00342‐8
Unterrainer M, Galldiks N, Suchorska B, et al. 18F‐FET PET uptake characteristics in patients with newly diagnosed and untreated brain metastasis. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(4):584‐589. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.180075
Kaalep A, Sera T, Rijnsdorp S, et al. Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(8):1344‐1361. doi:10.1007/s00259‐018‐3977‐4
Rose A. Quantum and noise limitations of the visual process. J Opt Soc Am, JOSA. 1953;43(9):715‐716. doi:10.1364/JOSA.43.000715
Lodge MA, Leal JP, Rahmim A, Sunderland JJ, Frey EC. Measuring PET spatial resolution using a cylinder phantom positioned at an oblique angle. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(11):1768‐1775. doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.209593
Fragoso Costa P, Jentzen W, Brahmer A, et al. Phantom‐based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):899. doi:10.1186/s12885‐022‐09993‐4
Adler S, Seidel J, Choyke P, et al. Minimum lesion detectability as a measure of PET system performance. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(1):13. doi:10.1186/s40658‐017‐0179‐2
Farquhar TH, Llacer J, Sayre J, Tai YC, Hoffman EJ. ROC and LROC analyses of the effects of lesion contrast, size, and signal‐to‐noise ratio on detectability in PET images. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(4):745‐754.
Øen SK, Aasheim LB, Eikenes L, Karlberg AM. Image quality and detectability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems—a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6(1):16. doi:10.1186/s40658‐019‐0251‐1
Rahmim A, Tang J. Noise propagation in resolution modeled PET imaging and its impact on detectability. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(19):6945‐6968. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/58/19/6945
Lodge M, Boellaard R. Noise and bias characteristics of standardized uptake value (SUV) derived with point spread function (PSF) image reconstruction: should PSF be used for PET tumor uptake quantification ?. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(1):614.
Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, et al. A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):310‐320. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4923
Ibaraki M, Matsubara K, Shinohara Y, et al. Brain partial volume correction with point spreading function reconstruction in high‐resolution digital PET: comparison with an MR‐based method in FDG imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(8):717‐727. doi:10.1007/s12149‐022‐01753‐5
Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Evaluation of noise properties in PSF‐based PET image reconstruction. 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC). 2009:3042‐3047. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2009.5401574
Ashrafinia S, Mohy‐ud‐Din H, Karakatsanis NA, et al. Generalized PSF modeling for optimized quantitation in PET imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(12):5149. doi:10.1088/1361‐6560/aa6911
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. doi:10.1007/s00259‐021‐05201‐w
Muellauer J, Willimayer R, Goertzen AL, et al. 18F, 11C and 68Ga in small animal PET imaging. Evaluation of partial volume correction methods. Nuklearmedizin. 2013;52(6):250‐261. doi:10.3413/Nukmed‐0578‐13‐04