Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET

Ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) is the most widely used algorithm for clinical PET image reconstruction. OSEM is usually stopped early and post-filtered to control image noise and does not necessarily achieve optimal quantitation accuracy. As an alternative to OSEM, we have recently implemented a penalized likelihood (PL) image reconstruction algorithm for clinical PET using the relative difference penalty with the aim of improving quantitation accuracy without compromising visual image quality. Preliminary clinical studies have demonstrated visual image quality including lesion conspicuity in images reconstructed by the PL algorithm is better than or at least as good as that in OSEM images. In this paper we evaluate lesion quantitation accuracy of the PL algorithm with the relative difference penalty compared to OSEM by using various data sets including phantom data acquired with an anthropomorphic torso phantom, an extended oval phantom and the NEMA image quality phantom; clinical data; and hybrid clinical data generated by adding simulated lesion data to clinical data. We focus on mean standardized uptake values and compare them for PL and OSEM using both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF data. The results demonstrate improvements of PL in lesion quantitation accuracy compared to OSEM with a particular improvement in cold background regions such as lungs.

[1]  Sangtae Ahn,et al.  Accurate and consistent lesion quantitation with clinically acceptable penalized likelihood images , 2012, 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

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

[3]  C.W. Stearns,et al.  Estimating an acquisition-specific NEC curve for PET acquisitions , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[4]  E. Asma,et al.  Analysis of organ uniformity in low count density penalized likelihood PET images , 2007, 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[5]  Miguel Pagola,et al.  Twelve automated thresholding methods for segmentation of PET images: a phantom study. , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Alvaro R. De Pierro,et al.  Fast EM-like methods for maximum "a posteriori" estimates in emission tomography , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[8]  Osama Mawlawi,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of regularized PET image reconstruction , 2014 .

[9]  Mithat Gönen,et al.  Practical Approach for Comparative Analysis of Multilesion Molecular Imaging Using a Semiautomated Program for PET/CT , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Albert Macovski,et al.  A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Emission Image Reconstruction from Projections , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[11]  Linda Kaufman,et al.  Maximum likelihood, least squares, and penalized least squares for PET , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[12]  Sangtae Ahn,et al.  Partial volume correction for penalized-likelihood image reconstruction in oncological PET applications , 2013, 2013 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (2013 NSS/MIC).

[13]  S M Larson,et al.  Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding , 1997, Cancer.

[14]  F. Hermansen,et al.  Noise reduction and convergence of Bayesian algorithms with blobs based on the Huber function and median root prior , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  A penalized-likelihood image reconstruction method for emission tomography, compared to postsmoothed maximum-likelihood with matched spatial resolution , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  Comparison between MAP and postprocessed ML for image reconstruction in emission tomography when anatomical knowledge is available , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Resolution and noise properties of MAP reconstruction for fully 3-D PET , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Michael E Casey,et al.  PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[20]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[21]  Steven G. Ross,et al.  Application and Evaluation of a Measured Spatially Variant System Model for PET Image Reconstruction , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  Anthonin Reilhac,et al.  Evaluation of Three MRI-Based Anatomical Priors for Quantitative PET Brain Imaging , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[24]  Valentino Bettinardi,et al.  Regularized ML reconstruction for time/dose reduction in 18F-fluoride PET/CT studies , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Ariela Sofer,et al.  Evaluation of 3D reconstruction algorithms for a small animal PET camera , 1996 .

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

[27]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[28]  J. Nuyts,et al.  A concave prior penalizing relative differences for maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction in emission tomography , 2000 .

[29]  E U Mumcuoğlu,et al.  Bayesian reconstruction of PET images: methodology and performance analysis. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  R. Boellaard.  Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[33]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. , 2013, Medical physics.

[34]  I. Buvat,et al.  A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  Kris Thielemans,et al.  Study of direct and indirect parametric estimation methods of linear models in dynamic positron emission tomography. , 2008, Medical physics.

[36]  S. Strother,et al.  Practical tradeoffs between noise, quantitation, and number of iterations for maximum likelihood-based reconstructions. , 1991, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[37]  Jinyi Qi,et al.  Iterative reconstruction techniques in emission computed tomography , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  M. Defrise,et al.  MLEM and OSEM Deviate From the Cramer-Rao Bound at Low Counts , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[39]  Sangtae Ahn,et al.  Improving lesion detectability in PET imaging with a penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[40]  Gaspar Delso,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a new block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithm in PET/CT studies , 2014 .

[41]  W Vaalburg,et al.  The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2004, Cancer treatment reviews.

[42]  W. Oyen,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of FDG‐PET in nonsmall‐cell lung cancer , 2007, Cancer.

[43]  Quanzheng Li,et al.  Quantitative Statistical Methods for Image Quality Assessment , 2013, Theranostics.

[44]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Analysis of Resolution and Noise Properties of Nonquadratically Regularized Image Reconstruction Methods for PET , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[45]  K. Lange,et al.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[46]  S C Strother,et al.  The convergence of object dependent resolution in maximum likelihood based tomographic image reconstruction. , 1993, Physics in medicine and biology.