A phantom design and assessment of lesion detectability in PET imaging

The early detection of abnormal regions with increased tracer uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) is a key driver of imaging system design and optimization as well as choice of imaging protocols. Detectability, however, remains difficult to assess due to the need for realistic objects mimicking the clinical scene, multiple lesion-present and lesion-absent images and multiple observers. Fillable phantoms, with tradeoffs between complexity and utility, provide a means to quantitatively test and compare imaging systems under truth-known conditions. These phantoms, however, often focus on quantification rather than detectability. This work presents extensions to a novel phantom design and analysis techniques to evaluate detectability in the context of realistic, non-piecewise constant backgrounds. The design consists of a phantom filled with small solid plastic balls and a radionuclide solution to mimic heterogeneous background uptake. A set of 3D-printed regular dodecahedral ‘features’ were included at user-defined locations within the phantom to create ‘holes’ within the matrix of chaotically-packed balls. These features fill at approximately 3:1 contrast to the lumpy background. A series of signal-known-present (SP) and signal-known-absent (SA) sub-images were generated and used as input for observer studies. This design was imaged in a head-like 20 cm diameter, 20 cm long cylinder and in a body-like 36 cm wide by 21 cm tall by 40 cm long tank. A series of model observer detectability indices were compared across scan conditions (count levels, number of scan replicates), PET image reconstruction methods (with/without TOF and PSF) and between PET/CT scanner system designs using the same phantom imaged on multiple systems. The detectability index was further compared to the noise-equivalent count (NEC) level to characterize the relationship between NEC and observer SNR.

[1]  P.H. Pretorius,et al.  Single-slice versus multi-slice display for human-observer lesion-detection studies , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[2]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  A quantitative approach to a weight-based scanning protocol for PET oncology imaging , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

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

[4]  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.

[5]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[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]  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.

[9]  Paul E Kinahan,et al.  A phantom design for assessment of detectability in PET imaging. , 2016, Medical physics.

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

[11]  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.

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

[13]  Xiao Jin,et al.  Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

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

[16]  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.

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

[18]  F. Fazio,et al.  Generation of the Acquisition-Specific NEC (AS-NEC) Curves to Optimize the Injected Dose in 3D$^18$F-FDG Whole Body PET Studies , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[19]  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.

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

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

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