3D PET image reconstruction including both motion correction and registration directly into an MR or stereotaxic spatial atlas

This work explores the feasibility and impact of including both the motion correction and the image registration transformation parameters from positron emission tomography (PET) image space to magnetic resonance (MR), or stereotaxic, image space within the system matrix of PET image reconstruction. This approach is motivated by the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry, where PET is used to investigate differences in activation patterns between different groups of participants, requiring all images to be registered to a common spatial atlas. Currently, image registration is performed after image reconstruction which introduces interpolation effects into the final image. Furthermore, motion correction (also requiring registration) introduces a further level of interpolation, and the overall result of these operations can lead to resolution degradation and possibly artifacts. It is important to note that performing such operations on a post-reconstruction basis means, strictly speaking, that the final images are not ones which maximize the desired objective function (e.g. maximum likelihood (ML), or maximum a posteriori reconstruction (MAP)). To correctly seek parameter estimates in the desired spatial atlas which are in accordance with the chosen reconstruction objective function, it is necessary to include the transformation parameters for both motion correction and registration within the system modeling stage of image reconstruction. Such an approach not only respects the statistically chosen objective function (e.g. ML or MAP), but furthermore should serve to reduce the interpolation effects. To evaluate the proposed method, this work investigates registration (including motion correction) using 2D and 3D simulations based on the high resolution research tomograph (HRRT) PET scanner geometry, with and without resolution modeling, using the ML expectation maximization (MLEM) reconstruction algorithm. The quality of reconstruction was assessed using bias-variance and root mean squared error analyses, comparing the proposed method to conventional post-reconstruction registration methods. An overall reduction in bias (for a cold region: from 41% down to 31% (2D) and 97% down to 65% (3D), and for a hot region: from 11% down to 8% (2D) and from 16% down to 14% (3D)) and in root mean squared error analyses (for a cold region: from 43% to 37% (2D) and from 97% to 65% (3D), and for a hot region: from 11% to 9% (2D) and from 16% down to 14% (3D)) in reconstructed regional mean activities (full regions of interest; all with statistical significance: p < 5 × 10(-10)) is found when including the motion correction and registration in the system matrix of the MLEM reconstruction, with resolution modeling. However, this improvement in performance comes with an extra computational cost of about 40 min. In this context, this work constitutes an important step toward the goal of estimating parameters of interest directly from the raw Poisson-distributed PET data, and hence toward the complete elimination of post-processing steps.

[1]  Julian C. Matthews,et al.  Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[2]  W. Oertel,et al.  Brain monoamine systems in multiple system atrophy: A positron emission tomography study , 2012, Neurobiology of Disease.

[3]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  3D statistical neuroanatomical models from 305 MRI volumes , 1993, 1993 IEEE Conference Record Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

[4]  Jeffrey A. Fessler Optimization transfer approach to joint registration / reconstruction for motion-compensated image reconstruction , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

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

[6]  Xuan Liu,et al.  Comparison of 3-D reconstruction with 3D-OSEM and with FORE+OSEM for PET , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  Andrew J. Reader,et al.  Impact of Image-Space Resolution Modeling for Studies with the High-Resolution Research Tomograph , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  N. Volkow,et al.  Evidence That Sleep Deprivation Downregulates Dopamine D2R in Ventral Striatum in the Human Brain , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  Dean F. Wong,et al.  Accurate Event-Driven Motion Compensation in High-Resolution PET Incorporating Scattered and Random Events , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  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.

[11]  S. Cherry,et al.  Simultaneous in vivo positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Swen Hesse,et al.  Imaging of the brain serotonin transporters (SERT) with 18F-labelled fluoromethyl-McN5652 and PET in humans , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  Andrew J. Reader,et al.  EM algorithm system modeling by image-space techniques for PET reconstruction , 2003 .

[14]  Jing Tang,et al.  Direct 4D parametric image reconstruction with plasma input and reference tissue models in reversible binding imaging , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[15]  J Verhaeghe,et al.  Motion compensation for fully 4D PET reconstruction using PET superset data , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Julie C Price,et al.  Molecular Brain Imaging in the Multimodality Era , 2012, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[17]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Motion correction of multi-frame PET data in neuroreceptor mapping: Simulation based validation , 2009, NeuroImage.

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

[19]  R. Fulton,et al.  Event-by-event motion compensation in 3D PET , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[20]  Jeih-San Liow,et al.  Design of a motion-compensation OSEM list-mode algorithm for resolution-recovery reconstruction for the HRRT , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[21]  A. Rahmim,et al.  Direct 4D reconstruction of parametric images incorporating anato-functional joint entropy , 2010, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[22]  C. Comtat,et al.  OSEM-3D reconstruction strategies for the ECAT HRRT , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[23]  A. Rahmim,et al.  System Matrix Modeling of Externally Tracked Motion , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[24]  B F Hutton,et al.  Use of 3D reconstruction to correct for patient motion in SPECT. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Claude Comtat,et al.  Weighted schemes applied to 3D-OSEM reconstruction in PET , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

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

[27]  Tobias Schaeffter,et al.  Simultaneous PET–MR acquisition and MR-derived motion fields for correction of non-rigid motion in PET , 2010, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[28]  Georgios I. Angelis,et al.  Evaluation of a direct 4D reconstruction method using GLLS for estimating parametric maps of micro-parameters , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[29]  Klaus Wienhard,et al.  The ECAT HRRT: performance and first clinical application of the new high resolution research tomograph , 2000 .

[30]  J. Fessler,et al.  Joint estimation of image and deformation parameters in motion-corrected PET , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

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

[32]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Joint image reconstruction and nonrigid motion estimation with a simple penalty that encourages local invertibility , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[33]  Claude Comtat,et al.  Preserving Poisson characteristics of PET data with weighted OSEM reconstruction , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[34]  A. Berney,et al.  Brain regional α-[11C]methyl-L-tryptophan trapping in medication-free patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. , 2011, Archives of general psychiatry.

[35]  C. Comtat,et al.  Image based resolution modeling for the HRRT OSEM reconstructions software , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[36]  R. Carson A Maximum Likelihood Method for Region-of-Interest Evaluation in Emission Tomography , 1986, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[37]  Laurent Descarries,et al.  Decreased [18F]MPPF Binding Potential in the Dorsal Raphe Nucleus After a Single Oral Dose of Fluoxetine: A Positron-Emission Tomography Study in Healthy Volunteers , 2008, Biological Psychiatry.

[38]  Guobao Wang,et al.  Direct reconstruction of PET receptor binding parametric images using a simplified reference tissue model , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[39]  Lars Farde,et al.  Quantification of serotonin transporter availability with [11C]MADAM — A comparison between the ECAT HRRT and HR systems , 2010, NeuroImage.