Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of time-of-flight reconstruction on Philips GEMINI TF

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to optimize different parameters in the time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction for the Philips GEMINI TF. The use of TOF in iterative reconstruction introduces additional variables to be optimized compared to conventional PET reconstruction. The different parameters studied are the TOF kernel width, the kernel truncation (used to reduce reconstruction time) and the scatter correction method.

Methods

These parameters are optimized using measured phantom studies. All phantom studies were acquired with a very high number of counts to limit the effects of noise. A high number of iterations (33 subsets and 3 iterations) was used to reach convergence. The figures of merit are the uniformity in the background, the cold spot recovery and the hot spot contrast. As reference results we used the non-TOF reconstruction of the same data sets.

Results

It is shown that contrast recovery loss can only be avoided if the kernel is extended to more than 3 standard deviations. To obtain uniform reconstructions the recommended scatter correction is TOF single scatter simulation (SSS). This also leads to improved cold spot recovery and hot spot contrast. While the daily measurements of the system show a timing resolution in the range of 590–600 ps, the optimal reconstructions are obtained with a TOF kernel full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 650–700 ps. The optimal kernel width seems to be less critical for the recovered contrast but has an important effect on the background uniformity. Using smaller or wider kernels results in a less uniform background and reduced hot and cold contrast recovery.

Conclusion

The different parameters studied have a large effect on the quantitative accuracy of the reconstructed images. The optimal settings from this study can be used as a guideline to make an objective comparison of the gains obtained with TOF PET versus PET reconstruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campagnolo RE, Garderet P, Vacher J. Tomographie par emeterurs positrons avec mesure de temp de vol. In: Colloque National sur le Traitement du Signal, Nice, France. (1979).

  2. Gariod R, Allemand R, Cormoreche E, Laval M, Moszynski M. The leti positron tomograph architecture and time of flight improvements. In: Proceedings of The Workshop on Time of Flight Tomography, St Louis, USA. (1982).

  3. Yamamoto M, Ficke DC, Ter-Pogossian MM. Experimental assessment of the gain achieved by the utilization of time-of-flight information in a positron emission tomograph (Super PETT I). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1982;1:187–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Budinger TF. Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med 1983;24:73–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong WH. PET camera performance design evaluation for BGO and BaF2 scintillators (non-time-of-flight). J Nucl Med 1988;29:338–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mallon A, Grangeat P. Three-dimensional PET reconstruction with time-of-flight measurement. Phys Med Biol 1992;37:717–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ter-Pogossian MM, Mullani NA, Ficke DC, Markham J, Snyder DL. Photon time-of-flight-assisted positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1981;5:227–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muehllehner G, Karp JS. Positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:R117–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewellen TK. Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med 1998;28:268–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Eijk CW. Radiation detector developments in medical applications: inorganic scintillators in positron emission tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;129:13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aykac M, Bauer F, Williams C, Loope M, Schmand M. Timing performance of Hi-Rez detector for time-of-flight (TOF) PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2006;53:1084–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Surti S, Karp JS, Muehllehner G. Image quality assessment of LaBr3-based whole-body 3D PET scanners: a Monte Carlo evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:4593–610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Popescu LM, Lewitt RM. Small nodule detectability evaluation using a generalized scan-statistic model. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:6225–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Surti S, Karp JS, Popescu LM, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Werner M. Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25:529–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 2007;48:471–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med 2008;49:462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey M, Chen M, Kehren F, Michel C, et al. First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:4507–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mullani NA, Markham J, Ter-Pogossian MM. Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 1980;21:1095–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Defrise M, Casey ME, Michel C, Conti M. Fourier rebinning of time-of-flight PET data. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:2749–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vandenberghe S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Lewitt RM, Karp JS. Fast reconstruction of 3D time-of-flight PET data by axial rebinning and transverse mashing. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:1603–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parra L, Barrett HH. List-mode likelihood: EM algorithm and image quality estimation demonstrated on 2-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998;17:228–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang W, Hu Z, Gualtieri E, Parma M, Walsh E, Sebok D, et al. Systematic and distributed time-of-flight list mode PET reconstruction. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2006;3:1715–22.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Accorsi R, Adam LE, Werner ME, Karp JS. Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:2577–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Werner M, Surti S, Karp J. Implementation and evaluation of a 3D PET single scatter simulation with TOF modeling. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2006;3:1768–73.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Watson C. Extension of single scatter simulation to scatter correction of time-of-flight PET. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2005;5:2492–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daube-Witherspoon M, Surti S, Matej S, Werner M, Jayanthi S, Karp J. Influence of time-of-flight kernel accuracy in TOF-PET reconstruction. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2006;3:1723–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vandenberghe S, Verhaeghe J, Lemahieu I, Matej S, Daube-Witherspoon M, Karp J, et al. Determining timing resolution from TOF-PET emission data. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2007;4:2727–31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Joel Karp, Suleman Surti and Margaret Daube-Witherspoon from UPENN and Amy Perkins from Philips Research USA for useful suggestions on parameter selection in the commercial software

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MEDISIP Research Group ELIS-IBBT-IBITECH, Ghent University, University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, Blok B, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Stefaan Vandenberghe, Enrico Clementel, Jeroen Verhaeghe & Ignace Lemahieu

  2. Philips Medical Systems Benelux, Brussels, Belgium

    Michel Guerchaft

  3. Center for Molecular Imaging and Experimental Radiotherapy, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

    Larry van Elmbt, Anne Bol & Max Lonneux

Authors
  1. Stefaan Vandenberghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry van Elmbt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michel Guerchaft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Enrico Clementel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeroen Verhaeghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anne Bol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ignace Lemahieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Max Lonneux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefaan Vandenberghe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vandenberghe, S., van Elmbt, L., Guerchaft, M. et al. Optimization of time-of-flight reconstruction on Philips GEMINI TF. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 1994–2001 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1164-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1164-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation