Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Verification of image quality improvement of low-count bone scintigraphy using deep learning

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To improve image quality for low-count bone scintigraphy using deep learning and evaluate their clinical applicability. Six hundred patients (training, 500; validation, 50; evaluation, 50) were included in this study. Low-count original images (75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% counts) were generated from reference images (100% counts) using Poisson resampling. Output (DL-filtered) images were obtained after training with U-Net using reference images as teacher data. Gaussian-filtered images were generated for comparison. Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity (SSIM) to the reference image were calculated to determine image quality. Artificial neural network (ANN) value, bone scan index (BSI), and number of hotspots (Hs) were computed using BONENAVI analysis to assess diagnostic performance. Accuracy of bone metastasis detection and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. PSNR and SSIM for DL-filtered images were highest in all count percentages. BONENAVI analysis values for DL-filtered images did not differ significantly, regardless of the presence or absence of bone metastases. BONENAVI analysis values for original and Gaussian-filtered images differed significantly at ≦25% counts in patients without bone metastases. In patients with bone metastases, BSI and Hs for original and Gaussian-filtered images differed significantly at ≦10% counts, whereas ANN values did not. The accuracy of bone metastasis detection was highest for DL-filtered images in all count percentages; the AUC did not differ significantly. The deep learning method improved image quality and bone metastasis detection accuracy for low-count bone scintigraphy, suggesting its clinical applicability.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Macedo F, Ladeira K, Pinho F, et al. Bone metastases: an overview. Oncol Rev. 2017;11:321.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Maffioli L, Florimonte L, Pagani L, Butti I, Roca I. Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:S143–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Govaert GAM, Glaudemans AWJM. Nuclear medicine imaging of posttraumatic osteomyelitis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42:397–410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdelrazek S, Szumowski P, Rogowski F, Kociura-Sawicka A, Mojsak M, Szorc M. Bone scan in metabolic bone diseases Review. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2012;15:124–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Koppula BR, Morton KA, Al-Dulaimi R, Fine GC, Damme NM, Brown RKJ. SPECT/CT in the evaluation of suspected skeletal pathology. Tomography. 2021;7:581–605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Saha S, Burke C, Desai A, Vijayanathan S, Gnanasegaran G. SPECT-CT: applications in musculoskeletal radiology. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20120519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang L, He Q, Zhou T, et al. Accurate characterization of 99mTc-MDP uptake in extraosseous neoplasm mimicking bone metastasis on whole-body bone scan: contribution of SPECT/CT. BMC Med Imaging. 2019;19:44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Pan B, Qi N, Meng Q, et al. Ultra high speed SPECT bone imaging enabled by a deep learning enhancement method: a proof of concept. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Pain CD, Egan GF, Chen Z. Deep learning-based image reconstruction and post-processing methods in positron emission tomography for low-dose imaging and resolution enhancement. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:3098–118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng Z, Wen J, Huang G, Yan J. Applications of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine image generation. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021;11:2792–822.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Arabi H, Zaidi H. Applications of artificial intelligence and deep learning in molecular imaging and radiotherapy. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2020;4:17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Nensa F, Demircioglu A, Rischpler C. Artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:29S-37S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shao W, Rowe SP, Du Y. Artificial intelligence in single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging: a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:820.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Decuyper M, Maebe J, Van Holen R, Vandenberghe S. Artificial intelligence with deep learning in nuclear medicine and radiology. EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8:81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang D, Pretorius PH, Lin K, et al. A novel deep-learning-based approach for automatic reorientation of 3D cardiac SPECT images. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:3457–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ito T, Maeno T, Tsuchikame H, et al. Adapting a low-count acquisition of the bone scintigraphy using deep denoising super-resolution convolutional neural network. Phys Med. 2022;100:18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sadik M, Hamadeh I, Nordblom P, et al. Computer-assisted interpretation of planar whole-body bone scans. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1958–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadik M, Suurkula M, Höglund P, Järund A, Edenbrandt L. Improved classifications of planar whole-body bone scans using a computer-assisted diagnosis system: a multicenter, multiple-reader, multiple-case study. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sadik M, Jakobsson D, Olofsson F, Ohlsson M, Suurkula M, Edenbrandt L. A new computer-based decision-support system for the interpretation of bone scans. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. White D, Lawson RS. A Poisson resampling method for simulating reduced counts in nuclear medicine images. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:N167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Belhocine T, Rachinsky I, Akincioglu C, et al. How Useful is an integrated SPECT/CT in clinical setting and research?: evaluation of a low radiation dose 4 slice system. Open Medical Imaging J. 2008;2:80–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanhove C, Franken PR, Defrise M, Deconinck F, Bossuyt A. Reconstruction of gated myocardial perfusion SPET incorporating temporal information during iterative reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:465–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Minarik D, Enqvist O, Trägårdh E. Denoising of scintillation camera images using a deep convolutional neural network: a monte carlo simulation approach. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:298–303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv: 1505.04597

  25. Liu CC, Qi J. Higher SNR PET image prediction using a deep learning model and MRI image. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64:115004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen KT, Gong E, de Carvalho Macruz FB, et al. Ultra-low-dose 18F-florbetaben amyloid pet imaging using deep learning with multi-contrast MRI inputs. Radiology. 2019;290:649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu W, Onofrey JA, Lu Y, et al. An investigation of quantitative accuracy for deep learning based denoising in oncological PET. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64:165019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ardenfors O, Svanholm U, Jacobsson H, Sandqvist P, Grybäck P, Jonsson C. Reduced acquisition times in whole body bone scintigraphy using a noise-reducing Pixon®-algorithm-a qualitative evaluation study. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kovacs A, Bukki T, Légrádi G, et al. Robustness analysis of denoising neural networks for bone scintigraphy. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A. 2022;1039: 167003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu S, Feng M, Qiao T, et al. Deep learning for the automatic diagnosis and analysis of bone metastasis on bone scintigrams. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;14:51–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (https://www.editage.com/) for editing and reviewing this manuscript for English language.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan

    Taisuke Murata, Takuma Hashimoto, Takashi Iimori, Koichi Sawada, Tetsuro Umezawa & Yoshitada Masuda

  2. Department of Quantum Medical Technology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan

    Taisuke Murata, Masahisa Onoguchi & Takayuki Shibutani

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Takashi Uno

Authors
  1. Taisuke Murata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takuma Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masahisa Onoguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takayuki Shibutani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Iimori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Koichi Sawada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tetsuro Umezawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yoshitada Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takashi Uno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahisa Onoguchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

No conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants

All procedures involving human participants performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent from the patients.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murata, T., Hashimoto, T., Onoguchi, M. et al. Verification of image quality improvement of low-count bone scintigraphy using deep learning. Radiol Phys Technol 17, 269–279 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-023-00776-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-023-00776-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation