A phantom design for assessment of detectability in PET imaging.

PURPOSE The primary clinical role of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is the detection of anomalous regions of (18)F-FDG uptake, which are often indicative of malignant lesions. The goal of this work was to create a task-configurable fillable phantom for realistic measurements of detectability in PET imaging. Design goals included simplicity, adjustable feature size, realistic size and contrast levels, and inclusion of a lumpy (i.e., heterogeneous) background. METHODS The detection targets were hollow 3D-printed dodecahedral nylon features. The exostructure sphere-like features created voids in a background of small, solid non-porous plastic (acrylic) spheres inside a fillable tank. The features filled at full concentration while the background concentration was reduced due to filling only between the solid spheres. RESULTS Multiple iterations of feature size and phantom construction were used to determine a configuration at the limit of detectability for a PET/CT system. A full-scale design used a 20 cm uniform cylinder (head-size) filled with a fixed pattern of features at a contrast of approximately 3:1. Known signal-present and signal-absent PET sub-images were extracted from multiple scans of the same phantom and with detectability in a challenging (i.e., useful) range. These images enabled calculation and comparison of the quantitative observer detectability metrics between scanner designs and image reconstruction methods. The phantom design has several advantages including filling simplicity, wall-less contrast features, the control of the detectability range via feature size, and a clinically realistic lumpy background. CONCLUSIONS This phantom provides a practical method for testing and comparison of lesion detectability as a function of imaging system, acquisition parameters, and image reconstruction methods and parameters.

[1]  H C Gifford Efficient visual-search model observers for PET. , 2014, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  Jing Tang,et al.  Noise propagation in resolution modeled PET imaging and its impact on detectability , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  P. Christian,et al.  Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  H. Makse,et al.  A phase diagram for jammed matter , 2008, Nature.

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

[6]  Li Yang,et al.  Regularization design in penalized maximum-likelihood image reconstruction for lesion detection in 3D PET. , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[8]  Michael A. King,et al.  Single-slice versus multi-slice display for human-observer lesion-detection studies , 1999 .

[9]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  Comparison of channelized hotelling and human observers in determining optimum OS-EM reconstruction parameters for myocardial SPECT , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[10]  F. Vallentin,et al.  Upper bounds for packings of spheres of several radii , 2012, Forum of Mathematics, Sigma.

[11]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Practical issues and methodology in assessment of image quality using model observers , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Eric C. Frey,et al.  Evaluation of myocardial defect detection between parallel-hole and fan-beam SPECT using the Hotelling trace , 1997 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Performance evaluation of a modular gamma camera using a detectability index. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Michael Casey,et al.  Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  H Bal,et al.  Improving PET spatial resolution and detectability for prostate cancer imaging , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  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.

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

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

[20]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Hardware assessment using the multi-module, multi-resolution system (M3R): a signal-detection study. , 2007, Medical physics.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  P. Christian,et al.  Use of a precision fillable clinical simulator phantom for PET/CT scanner validation in multi-center clinical trials: The SNM Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Program , 2012 .

[24]  Sangtae Ahn,et al.  Improving lesion detectability in PET imaging with a penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[25]  S. Wollenweber A Multi-Contrast, Multi-Resolution Phantom for Radionuclide Imaging Using a Single Activity Concentration Fill , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[26]  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.

[27]  Eric C. Frey,et al.  Evaluation of myocardial defect detection between parallel-hole and fan-beam SPECT using the Hotelling trace , 1997, 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[28]  Dylan Christopher Hunt,et al.  Design and construction of a quality control phantom for SPECT and PET imaging. , 2009, Medical physics.

[29]  F. Difilippo,et al.  A fillable micro-hollow sphere lesion detection phantom using superposition , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  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.

[31]  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.

[32]  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.

[33]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  Comparison of channelized hotelling and human observers in determining optimum OSEM reconstruction parameters for myocardial SPECT , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[34]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[36]  Adam Wunderlich,et al.  Exact Confidence Intervals for Channelized Hotelling Observer Performance in Image Quality Studies , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[37]  Georges El Fakhri,et al.  Impact of Acquisition Geometry, Image Processing, and Patient Size on Lesion Detection in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  Matthew F Bieniosek,et al.  Technical Note: Characterization of custom 3D printed multimodality imaging phantoms. , 2015, Medical physics.

[39]  Frank P DiFilippo,et al.  Porous phantoms for PET and SPECT performance evaluation and quality assurance. , 2004, Medical physics.

[40]  Feng Yan-lin Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs(NEMA NU2-2001)(continuation) , 2003 .

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

[42]  Jinyi Qi Analysis of lesion detectability in Bayesian emission reconstruction with nonstationary object variability , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[43]  Matthew A Kupinski,et al.  Assessing image quality and dose reduction of a new x-ray computed tomography iterative reconstruction algorithm using model observers. , 2014, Medical physics.

[44]  D. Townsend,et al.  Initial assessment of image quality for low-dose PET: evaluation of lesion detectability , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[45]  M D Blaufox,et al.  PET imaging in oncology. , 2000, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[46]  M. Casey,et al.  Effect of Scan Time on Oncologic Lesion Detection in Whole-Body PET , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[47]  Paul E. Kinahan,et al.  Effect of 18F-FDG Uptake Time on Lesion Detectability in PET Imaging of Early-Stage Breast Cancer , 2015, Tomography.

[48]  Richard L. Wahl,et al.  Capabilities of two- and three-dimensional FDG-PET for detecting small lesions and lymph nodes in the upper torso: a dynamic phantom study , 1999, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.