Characterization and optimization of image quality as a function of reconstruction algorithms and parameter settings in a Siemens Inveon small-animal PET scanner using the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards

Abstract The image reconstruction algorithms provided with the Siemens Inveon small-animal PET scanner are filtered backprojection (FBP), 3-dimensional reprojection (3DRP), ordered subset expectation maximization in 2 or 3 dimensions (OSEM2D/3D) and maximum a posteriori (MAP) reconstruction. This study aimed at optimizing the reconstruction parameter settings with regard to image quality (IQ) as defined by the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards. The NEMA NU 4-2008 image quality phantom was used to determine image noise, expressed as percentage standard deviation in the uniform phantom region (%STDunif), activity recovery coefficients for the FDG-filled rods (RCrod), and spill-over ratios for the non-radioactive water- and air-filled phantom compartments (SORwat and SORair). Although not required by NEMA NU 4, we also determined a contrast-to-noise ratio for each rod (CNRrod), expressing the trade-off between activity recovery and image noise. For FBP and 3DRP the cut-off frequency of the applied filters, and for OSEM2D and OSEM3D, the number of iterations was varied. For MAP, the “smoothing parameter” β and the type of uniformity constraint (variance or resolution) were varied. Results of these analyses were demonstrated in images of an FDG-injected rat showing tumours in the liver, and of a mouse injected with an 18F-labeled peptide, showing a small subcutaneous tumour and the cortex structure of the kidneys. Optimum IQ in terms of CNRrod for the small-diameter rods was obtained using MAP with uniform variance and β=0.4. This setting led to RCrod,1 mm=0.21, RCrod,2 mm=0.57, %STDunif=1.38, SORwat=0.0011, and SORair=0.00086. However, the highest activity recovery for the smallest rods with still very small %STDunif was obtained using β=0.075, for which these IQ parameters were 0.31, 0.74, 2.67, 0.0041, and 0.0030, respectively. The different settings of reconstruction parameters were clearly reflected in the rat and mouse images as the trade-off between the recovery of small structures (blood vessels, small tumours, kidney cortex structure) and image noise in homogeneous body parts (healthy liver background). Highest IQ for the Inveon PET scanner was obtained using MAP reconstruction with uniform variance. The setting of β depended on the specific imaging goals.

[1]  Val J Lowe,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2007 performance measurements of the Siemens Inveon™ preclinical small animal PET system , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  R. Leahy,et al.  High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  L. J. Thomas,et al.  Noise and Edge Artifacts in Maximum-Likelihood Reconstructions for Emission Tomography , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  C. C. Watson New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET , 1999 .

[5]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  Martin Gotthardt,et al.  Spatial Resolution and Sensitivity of the Inveon Small-Animal PET Scanner , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  J. S. Lee,et al.  Performance Measurement of the microPET Focus 120 Scanner , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Dominique Sappey-Marinier,et al.  Raytest ClearPET™, a new generation small animal PET scanner , 2007 .

[9]  Val J Lowe,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  A. Luxen,et al.  NEMA NU4-2008 Image Quality Performance Report for the microPET Focus 120 and for Various Transmission and Reconstruction Methods , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  S. Siegel,et al.  Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  W. Oyen,et al.  The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  Shikui Yan,et al.  A New Highly Versatile Multimodality Small Animal Imaging Platform , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[14]  Marc C. Huisman,et al.  Performance evaluation of the Philips MOSAIC small animal PET scanner , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[15]  Jogeshwar Mukherjee,et al.  Performance evaluation of an Inveon PET preclinical scanner , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  W. Mcbride,et al.  A Novel Method of 18F Radiolabeling for PET , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  Jurgen Seidel,et al.  Performance evaluation of the GE healthcare eXplore VISTA dual-ring small-animal PET scanner. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  A Rodríguez-Ruano,et al.  Design and performance evaluation of a coplanar multimodality scanner for rodent imaging. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. , 2001, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  Qinan Bao,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the Inveon Dedicated PET Preclinical Tomograph Based on the NEMA NU-4 Standards , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.