Investigating the limits of PET/CT imaging at very low true count rates and high random fractions in ion-beam therapy monitoring.

PURPOSE External beam radiotherapy with protons and heavier ions enables a tighter conformation of the applied dose to arbitrarily shaped tumor volumes with respect to photons, but is more sensitive to uncertainties in the radiotherapeutic treatment chain. Consequently, an independent verification of the applied treatment is highly desirable. For this purpose, the irradiation-induced β(+)-emitter distribution within the patient is detected shortly after irradiation by a commercial full-ring positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) scanner installed next to the treatment rooms at the Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT). A major challenge to this approach is posed by the small number of detected coincidences. This contribution aims at characterizing the performance of the used PET/CT device and identifying the best-performing reconstruction algorithm under the particular statistical conditions of PET-based treatment monitoring. Moreover, this study addresses the impact of radiation background from the intrinsically radioactive lutetium-oxyorthosilicate (LSO)-based detectors at low counts. METHODS The authors have acquired 30 subsequent PET scans of a cylindrical phantom emulating a patientlike activity pattern and spanning the entire patient counting regime in terms of true coincidences and random fractions (RFs). Accuracy and precision of activity quantification, image noise, and geometrical fidelity of the scanner have been investigated for various reconstruction algorithms and settings in order to identify a practical, well-suited reconstruction scheme for PET-based treatment verification. Truncated listmode data have been utilized for separating the effects of small true count numbers and high RFs on the reconstructed images. A corresponding simulation study enabled extending the results to an even wider range of counting statistics and to additionally investigate the impact of scatter coincidences. Eventually, the recommended reconstruction scheme has been applied to exemplary postirradiation patient data-sets. RESULTS Among the investigated reconstruction options, the overall best results in terms of image noise, activity quantification, and accurate geometrical recovery were achieved using the ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm with time-of-flight (TOF) and point-spread function (PSF) information. For this algorithm, reasonably accurate (better than 5%) and precise (uncertainty of the mean activity below 10%) imaging can be provided down to 80,000 true coincidences at 96% RF. Image noise and geometrical fidelity are generally improved for fewer iterations. The main limitation for PET-based treatment monitoring has been identified in the small number of true coincidences, rather than the high intrinsic random background. Application of the optimized reconstruction scheme to patient data-sets results in a 25% - 50% reduced image noise at a comparable activity quantification accuracy and an improved geometrical performance with respect to the formerly used reconstruction scheme at HIT, adopted from nuclear medicine applications. CONCLUSIONS Under the poor statistical conditions in PET-based treatment monitoring, improved results can be achieved by considering PSF and TOF information during image reconstruction and by applying less iterations than in conventional nuclear medicine imaging. Geometrical fidelity and image noise are mainly limited by the low number of true coincidences, not the high LSO-related random background. The retrieved results might also impact other emerging PET applications at low counting statistics.

[1]  Jinsong Ouyang,et al.  Monitoring proton radiation therapy with in-room PET imaging , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  H Paganetti,et al.  Automation and uncertainty analysis of a method for in-vivo range verification in particle therapy , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[4]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Patient study of in vivo verification of beam delivery and range, using positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging after proton therapy. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  C. C. Watson New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET , 1999 .

[6]  Oliver Jäkel,et al.  Positron emission tomography for quality assurance of cancer therapy with light ion beams , 1999 .

[7]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Comparison between in-beam and offline positron emission tomography imaging of proton and carbon ion therapeutic irradiation at synchrotron- and cyclotron-based facilities. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  Katia Parodi,et al.  PET/CT imaging for treatment verification after proton therapy: a study with plastic phantoms and metallic implants. , 2007, Medical physics.

[9]  Andrew J Reader,et al.  AB-OSEM reconstruction for improved Patlak kinetic parameter estimation: a simulation study , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  W Enghardt,et al.  On the feasibility of automatic detection of range deviations from in-beam PET data. , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  H. Paganetti Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Accuracy of proton beam range verification using post-treatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography as function of treatment site. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Akio Nagaki*,et al.  Patient Weight–Based Acquisition Protocols to Optimize18F-FDG PET/CT Image Quality , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[14]  R. Salem,et al.  Internal Pair Production of 90Y Permits Hepatic Localization of Microspheres Using Routine PET: Proof of Concept , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  R. Carson,et al.  Evaluation of bias and variance in low-count OSEM list mode reconstruction , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Christopher Kurz,et al.  Implementation and initial clinical experience of offline PET/CT-based verification of scanned carbon ion treatment. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  L. V. Elmbt,et al.  Feasibility of 90Y TOF PET-based dosimetry in liver metastasis therapy using SIR-Spheres , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[19]  D. Schardt,et al.  Magnetic scanning system for heavy ion therapy , 1993 .

[20]  Katia Parodi,et al.  PET imaging for treatment verification of ion therapy: Implementation and experience at GSI Darmstadt and MGH Boston , 2008 .

[21]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  Reducing loss of image quality because of the attenuation artifact in uncorrected PET whole-body images. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  Charles L. Byrne,et al.  Accelerating the EMML algorithm and related iterative algorithms by rescaled block-iterative methods , 1998, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[23]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT): Initial clinical experience in the first 80 patients , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[24]  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).

[25]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Implementation and workflow for PET monitoring of therapeutic ion irradiation: a comparison of in-beam, in-room, and off-line techniques , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  E. Pedroni,et al.  The 200-MeV proton therapy project at the Paul Scherrer Institute: conceptual design and practical realization. , 1995, Medical physics.

[27]  O Jäkel,et al.  The Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center. , 2004, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[28]  O Jäkel,et al.  Treatment planning for heavy ion radiotherapy: clinical implementation and application. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Keiichi Nakagawa,et al.  The development and clinical use of a beam ON-LINE PET system mounted on a rotating gantry port in proton therapy. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[31]  M. Senda,et al.  Investigation of single, random, and true counts from natural radioactivity in LSO-based clinical PET , 2005, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[32]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Algorithms for the High-Resolution Research Tomograph , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[33]  M. Conti Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[34]  H Bal,et al.  Improving PET spatial resolution and detectability for prostate cancer imaging , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  D. Townsend,et al.  Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.