Analytic system matrix resolution modeling in PET: An application to Rb-82 cardiac imaging

An area of growing interest in PET imaging has been that of incorporating increasingly more accurate system matrix elements into the reconstruction task, thus arriving at images of higher quality. This work explores application of an analytic approach which individually models and combines the various resolution degrading phenomenon in PET (inter-crystal scattering, inter-crystal penetration, photon non-collinearity and positron range), and does not require extensive experimental measurements and/or simulations. The approach is able to produce considerable enhancements in image quality. The reconstructed resolution is seen to improve from 5.1mm-7.7mm across the field-of-view (FoV) to ap3.5mm nearly uniformly across the FoV. Furthermore, phantom studies indicate clearly improved images, while similar significant improvements are seen for the particular task of Rb-82 cardiac imaging.

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

[2]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Strategies for Motion Tracking and Correction in PET. , 2007, PET clinics.

[3]  Keiichiro Yoshinaga,et al.  What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges , 2008, Nuclear medicine communications.

[5]  William P. Segars,et al.  A realistic spline-based dynamic heart phantom , 1998 .

[6]  R.M. Leahy,et al.  Fully 3D Bayesian image reconstruction for the ECAT EXACT HR+ , 1997, 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[7]  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.

[8]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Calculation of positron range and its effect on the fundamental limit of positron emission tomography system spatial resolution. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  A. Buck,et al.  PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[10]  Matthew R. Palmer,et al.  Annihilation density distribution calculations for medically important positron emitters , 1992, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[11]  Josef Machac,et al.  Cardiac positron emission tomography imaging. , 2005, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[12]  M. Lauer,et al.  Incremental value of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for prognostic assessment of known or suspected coronary artery disease. , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  Andrew J. Reader,et al.  One-pass list-mode EM algorithm for high-resolution 3-D PET image reconstruction into large arrays , 2002 .

[14]  Vladimir Y. Panin,et al.  Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  R Lecomte,et al.  Fast point spread function computation from aperture functions in high-resolution positron emission tomography. , 1988, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[16]  Frank J. Rybicki,et al.  Interrelation of Coronary Calcification, Myocardial Ischemia, and Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease: A Combined Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Study , 2008, Circulation.

[17]  J. A. Parker,et al.  Modeling and simulation of positron range effects for high resolution PET imaging , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[18]  John D Friedman,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: Comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT , 2006, Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.

[19]  D E Kuhl,et al.  Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallium-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. , 1991, The American journal of cardiology.

[20]  Andrew J. Reader,et al.  Scatter modeling for 3-d PET list-mode EM reconstruction , 2002, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[21]  A. Rahmim,et al.  Improved noise propagation in statistical image reconstruction with resolution modeling , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

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

[23]  R. Lecomte,et al.  Geometry Study of a High Resolution PET Detection System Using Small Detectors , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[24]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  Statistical dynamic image reconstruction in state-of-the-art high-resolution PET , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  C. Comtat,et al.  Improved Clinical Parametric Imaging Using List-Mode Reconstruction via Resolution Modeling , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[26]  Stephen E. Derenzo,et al.  Mathematical Removal of Positron Range Blurring in High Resolution Tomography , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[27]  Raymond Kwong,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[28]  Eric C. Frey,et al.  Improved Monte-Carlo simulations for dynamic PET , 2006 .

[29]  Simon R. Cherry,et al.  Fully 3D Bayesian image reconstruction for the ECAT EXACT HR , 1997 .

[30]  Thomas K. Lewellen,et al.  Positron range and coincidence non-collinearity in SimSET , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

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

[32]  A. Rahmim,et al.  Motion compensation in histogram-mode and list-mode EM reconstructions: beyond the event-driven approach , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[33]  S. Derenzo,et al.  Application of mathematical removal of positron range blurring in positron emission tomography , 1990 .

[34]  R.L. Harrison,et al.  Measured spatially variant system response for PET image reconstruction , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[35]  Roger Lecomte,et al.  Detector response models for statistical iterative image reconstruction in high resolution PET , 1998 .

[36]  M. Casey,et al.  PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[37]  A. Evans,et al.  Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  Bing Bai,et al.  Three-dimensional maximum a posteriori (MAP) imaging with radiopharmaceuticals labeled with three Cu radionuclides. , 2006, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[39]  Jennifer Merrill,et al.  Comparison of Measures of Left Ventricular Function from Electrocardiographically Gated 82Rb PET with Contrast-Enhanced CT Ventriculography: A Hybrid PET/CT Analysis , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[40]  T. Hebert,et al.  Fast methods for including attenuation in the EM algorithm , 1990 .

[41]  Val J Lowe,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[42]  A. Rahmim,et al.  Space-variant and anisotropic resolution modeling in list-mode EM reconstruction , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).