A penalized-likelihood image reconstruction method for emission tomography, compared to postsmoothed maximum-likelihood with matched spatial resolution

Regularization is desirable for image reconstruction in emission tomography. A powerful regularization method is the penalized-likelihood (PL) reconstruction algorithm (or equivalently, maximum a posteriori reconstruction), where the sum of the likelihood and a noise suppressing penalty term (or Bayesian prior) is optimized. Usually, this approach yields position-dependent resolution and bias. However, for some applications in emission tomography, a shift-invariant point spread function would be advantageous. Recently, a new method has been proposed, in which the penalty term is tuned in every pixel to impose a uniform local impulse response. In this paper, an alternative way to tune the penalty term is presented. We performed positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography simulations to compare the performance of the new method to that of the postsmoothed maximum-likelihood (ML) approach, using the impulse response of the former method as the postsmoothing filter for the latter. For this experiment, the noise properties of the PL algorithm were not superior to those of postsmoothed ML reconstruction.

[1]  P. Dupont,et al.  Prognostic importance of the standardized uptake value on (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in non-small-cell lung cancer: An analysis of 125 cases. Leuven Lung Cancer Group. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Michael Unser,et al.  Recursive Regularization Filters: Design, Properties, and Applications , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[3]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Validation of new Gibbs priors for Bayesian tomographic reconstruction using numerical studies and physically acquired data , 1999 .

[4]  J. Webster Stayman,et al.  Nonnegative definite quadratic penalty design for penalized-likelihood reconstruction , 2001, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310).

[5]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[6]  Stuart Geman,et al.  Statistical methods for tomographic image reconstruction , 1987 .

[7]  R. Leahy,et al.  High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Eric C. Frey,et al.  Fast maximum entropy approximation in SPECT using the RBI-MAP algorithm , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[9]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Compensation for nonuniform resolution using penalized-likelihood reconstruction in space-variant imaging systems , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Johan Nuyts.  On estimating the variance of smoothed MLEM images , 2001 .

[12]  S. Alenius,et al.  Bayesian image reconstruction for emission tomography based on median root prior , 1997, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[14]  J. Fessler,et al.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs , 1996, 5th IEEE EMBS International Summer School on Biomedical Imaging, 2002..

[15]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[16]  Jeffrey A. Fessler.  SPATIAL RESOLUTION PROPERTIES OF PENALIZED WEIGHTED LEAST-SQUARES TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION WITH MODEL MISMATCH , 1997 .

[17]  J. Nuyts,et al.  A concave prior penalizing relative differences for maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction in emission tomography , 2000 .

[18]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  Prognostic I mportance o f t he S tandardized U ptake V alue o n 18 F-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-Glucose-Positron E mission T omography Scan i n N on-Small-Cell L ung C ancer: An A nalysis o f 1 25 C ases , 1999 .

[19]  E.T.P. Slijpen,et al.  Comparison of post-filtering and filtering between iterations for SPECT reconstruction , 1998 .

[20]  M E Bellemann,et al.  Subsets and overrelaxation in iterative image reconstruction , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Regularization for uniform spatial resolution properties in penalized-likelihood image reconstruction , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  J. D. Wilson,et al.  A smoothed EM approach to indirect estimation problems, with particular reference to stereology and emission tomography , 1990 .

[23]  E.T.P. Slijpen,et al.  Comparison of post-filtering and filtering between iterations for SPECT reconstruction , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[24]  Kris Thielemans,et al.  Object dependency of resolution and convergence rate in OSEM with filtering , 2001, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310).

[25]  M I Miller,et al.  Maximum likelihood SPECT in clinical computation times using mesh-connected parallel computers. , 1991, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.