The impact of reconstruction algorithms and time of flight information on PET/CT image quality

Abstract Background. The aim of the study was to explore the influence of various time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF reconstruction algorithms on positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) image quality. Materials and methods. Measurements were performed with a triple line source phantom, consisting of capillaries with internal diameter of ~ 1 mm and standard Jaszczak phantom. Each of the data sets was reconstructed using analytical filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm, iterative ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm (4 iterations, 24 subsets) and iterative True-X algorithm incorporating a specific point spread function (PSF) correction (4 iterations, 21 subsets). Baseline OSEM (2 iterations, 8 subsets) was included for comparison. Procedures were undertaken following the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU-2-2001 protocol. Results. Measurement of spatial resolution in full width at half maximum (FWHM) was 5.2 mm, 4.5 mm and 2.9 mm for FBP, OSEM and True-X; and 5.1 mm, 4.5 mm and 2.9 mm for FBP+TOF, OSEM+TOF and True-X+TOF respectively. Assessment of reconstructed Jaszczak images at different concentration ratios showed that incorporation of TOF information improves cold contrast, while hot contrast only slightly, however the most prominent improvement could be seen in background variability - noise reduction. Conclusions. On the basis of the results of investigation we concluded, that incorporation of TOF information in reconstruction algorithm mostly affects reduction of the background variability (levels of noise in the image), while the improvement of spatial resolution due to incorporation of TOF information is negligible. Comparison of traditional and modern reconstruction algorithms showed that analytical FBP yields comparable results in some parameter measurements, such as cold contrast and relative count error. Iterative methods show highest levels of hot contrast, when TOF and PSF corrections were applied simultaneously.

[1]  W. Moses Recent Advances and Future Advances in Time-of-Flight PET. , 2006, Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment.

[2]  Michael E Casey,et al.  PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  R. Dolenec,et al.  Study of TOF PET using Cherenkov light , 2011 .

[4]  V. Rangarajan,et al.  Essential nuclear medicine physics , 2007, Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging.

[5]  D. Townsend,et al.  An Assessment of the Impact of Incorporating Time-of-Flight Information into Clinical PET/CT Imaging , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  Thomas L. Morgan,et al.  Quality Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems , 2012 .

[7]  Koichiro Abe,et al.  Improvement in PET/CT Image Quality with a Combination of Point-Spread Function and Time-of-Flight in Relation to Reconstruction Parameters , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  P. Lecumberri,et al.  Evaluation of spatial resolution of a PET scanner through the simulation and experimental measurement of the recovery coefficient , 2010, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[9]  Arne Skretting A method for on-site measurements of the effective spatial resolution in PET image volumes reconstructed with OSEM and Gaussian post-filters. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  S. Cherry,et al.  Physics in Nuclear Medicine , 2004 .

[11]  Martin A Lodge,et al.  A Practical, Automated Quality Assurance Method for Measuring Spatial Resolution in PET , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Gopal B. Saha,et al.  Basics of PET Imaging , 2005 .

[14]  Evaluation of the HD and HD+TOF reconstructions for Siemens' Biograph-mCT TOF PET scanner , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[15]  E Prieto,et al.  [Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET/CT Biograph mCT scanner]. , 2013, Revista espanola de medicina nuclear e imagen molecular.

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

[17]  M. Conti Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

[19]  J. Martí-Climent,et al.  Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET/CT Biograph mCT scanner ☆ , 2013 .

[20]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  State of the art and challenges of time-of-flight PET. , 2009, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[21]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  D. Townsend,et al.  Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.