Observer study-based evaluation of a stochastic and physics-based method to generate oncological PET images

Objective evaluation of new and improved methods for PET imaging requires access to images with ground truth, as can be obtained through simulation studies. However, for these studies to be clinically relevant, it is important that the simulated images are clinically realistic. In this study, we develop a stochastic and physics-based method to generate realistic oncological two-dimensional (2-D) PET images, where the ground-truth tumor properties are known. The developed method extends upon a previously proposed approach. The approach captures the observed variabilities in tumor properties from actual patient population. Further, we extend that approach to model intra-tumor heterogeneity using a lumpy object model. To quantitatively evaluate the clinical realism of the simulated images, we conducted a human-observer study. This was a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) study with trained readers (five PET physicians and one PET physicist). Our results showed that the readers had an average of ∼ 50% accuracy in the 2AFC study. Further, the developed simulation method was able to generate wide varieties of clinically observed tumor types. These results provide evidence for the application of this method to 2-D PET imaging applications, and motivate development of this method to generate 3-D PET images.

[1]  Fei Yang,et al.  Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards , 2015, Journal of medical imaging.

[2]  Chi Wan Koo,et al.  Evaluation of a projection-domain lung nodule insertion technique in thoracic computed tomography , 2017, Journal of medical imaging.

[3]  Charles R. Giardina,et al.  Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour , 1982, Comput. Graph. Image Process..

[4]  H. Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. III. ROC metrics, ideal observers, and likelihood-generating functions. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[5]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Generative Adversarial Nets , 2014, NIPS.

[7]  Valentino Bettinardi,et al.  PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction , 2014, Clinical and Translational Imaging.

[8]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  AI-based methods for nuclear-medicine imaging: Need for objective task-specific evaluation , 2020 .

[9]  Paul Babyn,et al.  Generative Adversarial Network in Medical Imaging: A Review , 2018, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Validation of a Projection-domain Insertion of Liver Lesions into CT Images. , 2016, Academic radiology.

[11]  C Lartizien,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Jeffrey L. Gunter,et al.  Medical Image Synthesis for Data Augmentation and Anonymization using Generative Adversarial Networks , 2018, SASHIMI@MICCAI.

[13]  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.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Design and fabrication of heterogeneous lung nodule phantoms for assessing the accuracy and variability of measured texture radiomics features in CT , 2019, Journal of medical imaging.

[15]  W. Segars,et al.  4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research. , 2010, Medical physics.

[16]  Matthew A Kupinski,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality VI: imaging in radiation therapy , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[18]  A. Laine,et al.  4D numerical observer for lesion detection in respiratory-gated PET. , 2014, Medical physics.

[19]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  An estimation-based segmentation method to delineate tumors in PET images. , 2020 .

[20]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Experimental determination of object statistics from noisy images. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[21]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[22]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges. , 2010, Imaging in medicine.

[23]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  18F-FDG PET/CT Metabolic Tumor Volume and Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Pancreatic Adenocarcinomas: Impact of Dual–Time Point and Segmentation Methods , 2017, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[24]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Physiological random processes in precision cancer therapy , 2018, PloS one.

[25]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography , 2017, Journal of medical imaging.

[26]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Accuracy and Precision of Partial-Volume Correction in Oncological PET/CT Studies , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Ulas Bagci,et al.  A review on segmentation of positron emission tomography images , 2014, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[28]  Federico Turkheimer,et al.  Importance of Quantification for the Analysis of PET Data in Oncology: Review of Current Methods and Trends for the Future , 2012, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[29]  Hyunsuk Shim,et al.  Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy response. , 2011, Seminars in oncology.

[30]  Abhinav K. Jha,et al.  A no-gold-standard technique for objective evaluation of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods in the presence of correlated noise , 2020 .

[31]  Melanie Grunwald,et al.  Foundations Of Image Science , 2016 .

[32]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Challenges and Promises of PET Radiomics , 2018, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.