Comparison of rectangular and dual-planar positron emission mammography scanners

Breast imaging using dedicated positron emission tomography (PEM) has gained much interest in the medical imaging field. In this paper, we compare the performance between rectangular PEM and parallel dual-planar PEM. Both designs are studied with DOI detectors (detectors capable of measuring the depth of interaction) and non-DOI detectors. We compare the Fisher information matrix, lesion detectability using a prewhitening observer, and quantitation of the four systems. Results show that the rectangular system with DOI has the highest signal-to-noise ratio for lesion detection and the lowest bias for quantitation for any given noise level. It also shows that for small lesions the parallel dual-planar system with DOI detectors outperforms the rectangular system with non-DOI detectors, while the rectangular system with non-DOI detectors can outperform parallel dual-planar system with DOI detectors for large lesions. This indicates that a high detector resolution is essential for small lesions, while complete sampling may be more important for large lesions.

[1]  G De Vincentis,et al.  The role of Compton background and breast compression on cancer detection in scintimammography. , 1997, Anticancer research.

[2]  H H Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[3]  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.

[4]  Jinyi Qi,et al.  Lesion detection and quantitation of positron emission mammography , 2001, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310).

[5]  Harry L. Van Trees,et al.  Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I , 1968 .

[6]  Ronald H. Huesman,et al.  Reconstruction in PET cameras with irregular sampling and depth of interaction capability , 1998 .

[7]  G. J. Klein,et al.  Image properties of list mode likelihood reconstruction for a rectangular positron emission mammograph with DOI measurements , 2000 .

[8]  S R Cherry,et al.  Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging. , 2000, Medical physics.

[9]  W. W. Moses,et al.  List-mode maximum-likelihood reconstruction applied to positron emission mammography (PEM) with irregular sampling , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Ronald H. Huesman,et al.  Theoretical study of lesion detectability of MAP reconstruction using computer observers , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Christopher J. Thompson,et al.  Positron emission mammography (PEM): a promising technique for detecting breast cancer , 1995 .

[12]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  W. Moses,et al.  A room temperature LSO/PIN photodiode PET detector module that measures depth of interaction , 1995 .

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

[15]  R Freifelder,et al.  Dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  M. Melamed Detection , 2021, SETI: Astronomy as a Contact Sport.