Improvement in PET/CT Image Quality with a Combination of Point-Spread Function and Time-of-Flight in Relation to Reconstruction Parameters

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the point-spread function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) on improving 18F-FDG PET/CT images in relation to reconstruction parameters and noise-equivalent counts (NEC). Methods: This study consisted of a phantom study and a retrospective analysis of 39 consecutive patients who underwent clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT. The body phantom of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and International Electrotechnical Commission with a 10-mm-diameter sphere was filled with an 18F-FDG solution with a 4:1 radioactivity ratio compared with the background. The PET data were reconstructed with the baseline ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm, with the OSEM+PSF model, with the OSEM+TOF model, and with the OSEM+PSF+TOF model. We evaluated image quality by visual assessment, the signal-to-noise ratio of the 10-mm sphere (SNR10 mm), the contrast of the 10-mm sphere, and the coefficient of variance in the phantom study and then determined the optimal reconstruction parameters. We also examined the effects of PSF and TOF on the quality of clinical images using the signal-to-noise ratio in the liver (SNRliver) in relation to the NEC in the liver (NECliver). Results: In the phantom study, the SNR10 mm was the highest for the OSEM+PSF+TOF model, and the highest value was obtained at iteration 2 for algorithms with the TOF and at iteration 3 for those without the TOF. In terms of a postsmoothing filter full width at half maximum (FWHM), the high SNR10 mm was obtained with no filtering or was smaller than 2 mm for algorithms with PSF and was 4–6 mm for those without PSF. The balance between the contrast recovery and noise is different for algorithms with either PSF or TOF. A combination of PSF and TOF improved SNR10 mm, contrast, and coefficient of variance, especially with a small-FWHM gaussian filter. In the clinical study, the SNRliver of the low-NECliver group in the OSEM+PSF+TOF model was compared with that of the high-NECliver group in conventional OSEM. The PSF+TOF improved the SNRliver by about 24.9% ± 9.81%. Conclusion: A combination of PSF and TOF clearly improves image quality, whereas optimization of the reconstruction parameters is necessary to obtain the best performance for PSF or TOF. Furthermore, this combination has the potential to provide good image quality with either lower activity or shorter acquisition time, thus improving patient comfort and reducing the radiation burden.

[1]  R. Badawi,et al.  NEC: some coincidences are more equivalent than others. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  R. Coleman,et al.  Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  M. Senda,et al.  Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 1.0 , 2010, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[4]  Y. Nishimura,et al.  Radiation treatment planning using positron emission and computed tomography for lung and pharyngeal cancers: a multiple-threshold method for [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose activity. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  V Kalff,et al.  The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. , 2001, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[7]  Chisato Kondo,et al.  Comparison of Imaging Protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in Overweight Patients: Optimizing Scan Duration Versus Administered Dose , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  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.

[10]  K Thielemans,et al.  Impact of PSF modelling on the convergence rate and edge behaviour of EM images in PET , 2010, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference.

[11]  R. Wahl,et al.  Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

[13]  V. Bettinardi,et al.  Physical performance of the new hybrid PET∕CT Discovery-690. , 2011, Medical physics.

[14]  W. Moses,et al.  Prospects for time-of-flight PET using LSO scintillator , 1999 .

[15]  D Delbeke,et al.  Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer, lymphoma and melanoma. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  H. Anger,et al.  SURVEY OF RADIOISOTOPE CAMERAS. , 1966 .

[17]  D. Mankoff,et al.  Impact of Time-of-Flight PET on Whole-Body Oncologic Studies: A Human Observer Lesion Detection and Localization Study , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-DPET , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[19]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  V. R. McCready,et al.  Medical radioisotope scintigraphy , 1970 .

[21]  R. Hustinx,et al.  Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  Gordon L. Brownell,et al.  NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN POSITRON SCINTIGRAPHY AND THE APPLICATION OF CYCLOTRON- PRODUCED POSITRON EMITTERS. , 1969 .

[23]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalents counts , 1990 .

[24]  Akio Nagaki*,et al.  Patient Weight–Based Acquisition Protocols to Optimize18F-FDG PET/CT Image Quality , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

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

[26]  J. Karp,et al.  Improvement in Lesion Detection with Whole-Body Oncologic Time-of-Flight PET , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  C. Dooms,et al.  Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. , 2004, The Lancet. Oncology.

[28]  J. S. Schweitzer,et al.  Evaluation of cerium doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO) scintillation crystals for PET , 1992 .

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

[30]  Steven G. Ross,et al.  Application and Evaluation of a Measured Spatially Variant System Model for PET Image Reconstruction , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[31]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  W. Oyen,et al.  Role of FDG-PET in the diagnosis and management of lung cancer , 2004, Expert review of anticancer therapy.

[33]  長木 昭男 Patient weight-based acquisition protocols to optimize 18F-FDG PET/CT image quality , 2012 .

[34]  Victor J. Sank,et al.  POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF A CESIUM FLUORIDE SCINTILLATOR FOR A TIME‐OF‐FLIGHT POSITRON CAMERA , 1980, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[35]  C. Melcher,et al.  Cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate: a fast, efficient new scintillator , 1991, Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.