Effect of Using 2 mm Voxels on Observer Performance for PET Lesion Detection

Positron emission tomography (PET) images are typically reconstructed with an in-plane pixel size of approximately 4 mm for cancer imaging. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of using smaller pixels on general oncologic lesion-detection. A series of observer studies was performed using experimental phantom data from the Utah PET Lesion Detection Database, which modeled whole-body FDG PET cancer imaging of a 92 kg patient. The data comprised 24 scans over 4 days on a Biograph mCT time-of-flight (TOF) PET/CT scanner, with up to 23 lesions (diam. 6–16 mm) distributed throughout the phantom each day. Images were reconstructed with 2.036 mm and 4.073 mm pixels using ordered-subsets expectation-maximization (OSEM) both with and without point spread function (PSF) modeling and TOF. Detection performance was assessed using the channelized non-prewhitened numerical observer with localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis. Tumor localization performance and the area under the LROC curve were then analyzed as functions of the pixel size. In all cases, the images with ${\sim}{2}\;\hbox{mm}$ pixels provided higher detection performance than those with ${\sim}{4}\;\hbox{mm}$ pixels. The degree of improvement from the smaller pixels was larger than that offered by PSF modeling for these data, and provided roughly half the benefit of using TOF. Key results were confirmed by two human observers, who read subsets of the test data. This study suggests that a significant improvement in tumor detection performance for PET can be attained by using smaller voxel sizes than commonly used at many centers. The primary drawback is a 4-fold increase in reconstruction time and data storage requirements.

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

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

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

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

[5]  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.

[6]  Dan J Kadrmas,et al.  Effect of Varying Number of OSEM Subsets on PET Lesion Detectability , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[7]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  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.

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

[18]  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.

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