Impact of Time Of Flight on early-stopped Maximum-Likelihood Expectation Maximization PET reconstruction

The use of Time Of Flight (TOF) in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is expected to reduce noise on images, thanks to the additional information. In clinical routine, a common reconstruction approach is the use of maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) stopped after few iterations. Empirically it was reported that, at matched number of iterations, the introduction of TOF increases noise. In this work we revise the theory describing the signal and noise convergence in MLEM, and we adapt it to describe the TOF impact on early stopped MLEM. We validated theoretical results using both computer simulations and phantom measurements, performed on scanners with different coincidence timing resolutions. This work provides theoretical support for the empirically observed noise increase introduced by TOF. Conversely, it shows that TOF not only improves signal convergence but also makes it less dependent on the activity distribution in the field of view. We then propose a strategy to determine stopping criteria for TOF-MLEM, which reduces the number of iterations by a factor proportional to the coincidence timing resolution. We prove that this criteria succeeds in markedly reducing noise, while improving signal recovery robustness as it provides a level of contrast recovery which is independent from the object dimension and from the activity distribution of the background.

[1]  C. Watson,et al.  Extension of Single Scatter Simulation to Scatter Correction of Time-of-Flight PET , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[2]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[3]  Yusheng Li,et al.  Noise propagation for iterative penalized-likelihood image reconstruction based on Fisher information , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

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

[6]  Kathleen Vunckx,et al.  Fisher information-based evaluation of image quality for time-of-flight PET , 2007 .

[7]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Performance Characteristics of the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  K. Lange Convergence of EM image reconstruction algorithms with Gibbs smoothing. , 1990, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[9]  B. Tsui,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm: II. Monte Carlo simulations. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Johan Nuyts,et al.  Unconstrained image reconstruction with resolution modelling does not have a unique solution , 2014, EJNMMI Physics.

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

[13]  L. Eriksson,et al.  Estimating image quality for future generations of TOF PET scanners , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[14]  M. Iatrou,et al.  Fully 3D PET Iterative Reconstruction Using Distance-Driven Projectors and Native Scanner Geometry , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[15]  Donald W. Wilson,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm. I. Theory , 1994 .