Information-Adaptive Denoising for Iterative PET Reconstruction

Quantitative accuracy and thus diagnostic precision in Emission Tomography is impaired by the inherent random characteristics of the data acquisition leading to statistical image noise. Edge preserving spatial variation regularized iterative image reconstruction approaches require case-specific control parameter adaptation for optimized contrast-vs-noise tradeoff. For MLEM reconstruction, we propose and evaluate iRDF which automatically adapts RDP edge preservation parameters according to local image noise and PET data characteristics. In order to distinguish between clustered noise spots and small tumors, we introduce hot-spot artifact correction. The proposed method was evaluated using NEMA IQ phantom data as well as clinical patient data. After initial iRDF base parameter tuning, results showed that iRDF maintained similar image quality regardless of statistics without requiring manual parameter tuning, in contrast to e.g. RDP. With NEMA-IQ phantom data, local image variance was reduced to ~33%, while contrast of small spheres could be mostly preserved compared to nonregularized OSEM. Using a quarter of the originally acquired list-mode data, a noise decreased to ~22% while SUV-max has been reduced to ~75% of OSEM-based results. NEMA phantom and clinical data showed improved signal-recovery-to-noise ratios, leading to an overall ~3 times higher feature detectability especially in small lesions. Finally, the processed examples illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed hot-pixel artefact correction. The proposed auto-adaptive iRDF regularization demonstrates high potential to reduce the burden of prior parameter tuning. It realizes a trade-off between feature contrast and image noise on both local and global scale. According to increased noise robustness at different count statistics, iRDF can be considered an interesting alternative especially for low-dose PET imaging applications.

[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]  Samuel Matej,et al.  Efficient 3D grids for image reconstruction using spherically-symmetric volume elements , 1995 .

[3]  T. J. Herbert Statistical stopping criteria for iterative maximum likelihood reconstruction of emission images , 1990 .

[4]  Shuhang Chen,et al.  Sparse representation and dictionary learning penalized image reconstruction for positron emission tomography , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Guobao Wang,et al.  PET Image Reconstruction Using Kernel Method , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[7]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Update on Time-of-Flight PET Imaging , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Robert M. Lewitt,et al.  Practical considerations for 3-D image reconstruction using spherically symmetric volume elements , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[9]  René M. Botnar,et al.  A Self-Normalization Reconstruction Technique for PET Scans Using the Positron Emission Data , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Á. R. De Pierro,et al.  Fast EM-like methods for maximum "a posteriori" estimates in emission tomography. , 2001, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

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

[12]  Xiaoyi Jiang,et al.  Correction techniques in emission tomography , 2012 .

[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]  Andrew J Reader,et al.  Patch-based image reconstruction for PET using prior-image derived dictionaries , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[16]  Jing Tang,et al.  Sparsity-constrained PET image reconstruction with learned dictionaries , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Ezgi Ilan,et al.  Evaluation of Penalized-Likelihood Estimation Reconstruction on a Digital Time-of-Flight PET/CT Scanner for 18F-FDG Whole-Body Examinations , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[19]  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.

[20]  J. Karp,et al.  Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  Guobao Wang,et al.  Edge-Preserving PET Image Reconstruction Using Trust Optimization Transfer , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

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

[24]  Kris Thielemans,et al.  Quantitatively accurate image reconstruction for clinical whole-body PET imaging , 2012, Proceedings of The 2012 Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference.

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

[26]  J. Karp,et al.  Systematic and Distributed Time-of-Flight List Mode PET Reconstruction , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.