Scan time reduction with advanced PET reconstruction: Preserving lesion detection performance

Lesion-detection performance in oncologic PET depends in part upon count statistics, with shorter scans having higher noise and reduced lesion detectability. However, advanced techniques such as time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) modeling can improve lesion detectability. This work investigates the relationship between reducing count levels (as a surrogate for scan time) and reconstructing with PSF model and TOF. A series of 24 whole-body phantom scans was acquired on a Biograph mCT TOF PET/CT scanner using the experimental methodology prescribed for the Utah PET Lesion Detection Database. Six scans were acquired each day over 4 days, with up to 23 68Ge shell-less lesions (diam. 6, 8, 10, 12, 16mm) distributed throughout the phantom thorax and pelvis. Each scan acquired 6 bed positions at 240s/bed in listmode format. The listmode files were then statistically pruned, preserving Poisson statistics, to equivalent count levels for scan times of 180s, 120s, 90s, 60s, 45s, 30s, and 15s per bed field-of-view. Each dataset was reconstructed using ordinary Poisson line-of-response (LOR) OSEM, with PSF model, with TOF, and with PSF+TOF. Localization receiver operating characteristics (LROC) analysis was then performed using the channelized non-prewhitened (CNPW) observer. The results were analyzed to delineate the relationship between scan time, reconstruction method, and strength of post-reconstruction filter. Lesion-detection performance degraded as scan time was reduced, and progressively stronger filters were required to maximize performance for the shorter scans. PSF modeling and TOF were found to improve detection performance, offsetting in part the reduced detectability for shorter scans. Notably, PSF+TOF at 120s per bed position preserved essentially the same detection performance as the baseline reconstruction at 240s/bed — effectively cutting whole-body scan time in half without degrading lesion-detection performance in these data.

[1]  D. Lalush,et al.  Comparison of Hotelling observer models and human observers in defect detection from myocardial SPECT imaging , 1999 .

[2]  Rik Van de Walle,et al.  Correction for external LOR effects in listmode reconstruction for PET , 2002, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging.

[3]  H.H. Barrett,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[4]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[5]  Dan J Kadrmas,et al.  LOR-OSEM: statistical PET reconstruction from raw line-of-response histograms , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  J Llacer,et al.  ROC and LROC analyses of the effects of lesion contrast, size, and signal-to-noise ratio on detectability in PET images. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  T. Tomitani.  Image Reconstruction and Noise Evaluation in Photon Time-of-Flight Assisted Positron Emission Tomography , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[8]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Volumetric model and human observer comparisons of tumor detection for whole-body positron emission tomography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[9]  H H Barrett,et al.  Hotelling trace criterion and its correlation with human-observer performance. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[11]  Christophe Deroose,et al.  Performance of MAP Reconstruction for Hot Lesion Detection in Whole-Body PET/CT: An Evaluation With Human and Numerical Observers , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  D. Townsend,et al.  Impact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  R G Swensson,et al.  Using Localization Data from Image Interpretations to Improve Estimates of Performance Accuracy , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  Dan J. Kadrmas,et al.  The Utah PET lesion detection database , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[15]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Fast LROC analysis of Bayesian reconstructed emission tomographic images using model observers. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  N. Mullani,et al.  Image improvement and design optimization of the time-of-flight PET. , 1983, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  Paul E Kinahan,et al.  Evaluating image reconstruction methods for tumor detection in 3-dimensional whole-body PET oncology imaging. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  M.E. Casey,et al.  A /sup 68/Ge PET hot-sphere phantom with no cold shells , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[19]  H.C. Gifford,et al.  Evaluation of multiclass model observers in PET LROC studies , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[20]  T. Budinger.  Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. , 1983, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  Matt A. King,et al.  Channelized hotelling and human observer correlation for lesion detection in hepatic SPECT imaging. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[23]  K. Erlandsson,et al.  Fast accurate iterative reconstruction for low-statistics positron volume imaging. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  P. Khurd,et al.  Rapid computation of LROC figures of merit using numerical observers (for SPECT/PET reconstruction) , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[25]  Dan J Kadrmas,et al.  Comparative evaluation of lesion detectability for 6 PET imaging platforms using a highly reproducible whole-body phantom with (22)Na lesions and localization ROC analysis. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  Matthew A. Kupinski,et al.  Objective Assessment of Image Quality , 2005 .

[27]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  R. Swensson.  Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[29]  Vladimir Y. Panin,et al.  Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[30]  S S Gambhir,et al.  ROC and localization ROC analyses of lesion detection in whole-body FDG PET: effects of acquisition mode, attenuation correction and reconstruction algorithm. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Comparison of 3D-OP-OSEM and 3D-FBP reconstruction algorithms for High-Resolution Research Tomograph studies: effects of randoms estimation methods , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  Experimental comparison of lesion detectability for four fully-3D PET reconstruction schemes , 2007, 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[33]  M. Casey,et al.  Improving PET With HD • PET + Time of Flight , 2008 .

[34]  P.H. Pretorius,et al.  A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[35]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[36]  C. Comtat,et al.  A comparison of planar versus volumetric numerical observers for detection task performance in whole-body PET imaging , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[37]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[38]  Lucretiu M Popescu,et al.  Nonparametric ROC and LROC analysis. , 2007, Medical physics.

[39]  H. Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. III. ROC metrics, ideal observers, and likelihood-generating functions. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[40]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole-body PET imaging protocols. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[41]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[42]  W. W. Moses,et al.  List-mode maximum-likelihood reconstruction applied to positron emission mammography (PEM) with irregular sampling , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[43]  Ronald H. Huesman,et al.  Theoretical study of lesion detectability of MAP reconstruction using computer observers , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.