Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging

  • N. Boussion
  • C. Cheze Le Rest
  • M. Hatt
  • D. Visvikis
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Partial volume effects (PVEs) are consequences of the limited resolution of emission tomography. The aim of the present study was to compare two new voxel-wise PVE correction algorithms based on deconvolution and wavelet-based denoising.

Materials and methods

Deconvolution was performed using the Lucy-Richardson and the Van-Cittert algorithms. Both of these methods were tested using simulated and real FDG PET images. Wavelet-based denoising was incorporated into the process in order to eliminate the noise observed in classical deconvolution methods.

Results

Both deconvolution approaches led to significant intensity recovery, but the Van-Cittert algorithm provided images of inferior qualitative appearance. Furthermore, this method added massive levels of noise, even with the associated use of wavelet-denoising. On the other hand, the Lucy-Richardson algorithm combined with the same denoising process gave the best compromise between intensity recovery, noise attenuation and qualitative aspect of the images.

Conclusion

The appropriate combination of deconvolution and wavelet-based denoising is an efficient method for reducing PVEs in emission tomography.

Keywords

FDG-PET Image processing Partial volume correction Whole-body PET 

References

  1. 1.
    Kato H, Shimosegawa E, Oku N, Kitagawa K, Kishima H, Saitoh Y, et al. MRI-based correction for partial volume effect improves detectability of intractable epileptogenic foci on 123I-iomazenil brain SPECT images. J Nucl Med 2008;49:383–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalpouzos G, Chetelat G, Baron JC, Landeau B, Mevel K, Godeau C, et al. Voxel-based mapping of brain gray matter volume and glucose metabolism profiles in normal aging. Neurobiol Aging 2009;30:112–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mevel K, Desgranges B, Baron JC, Landeau B, De la Sayette V, Viader F, et al. Detecting hippocampal hypometabolism in Mild Cognitive Impairment using automatic voxel-based approaches. Neuroimage 2007;37(1):18–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samuraki M, Matsunari I, Chen WP, Yajima K, Yanase D, Fujikawa A, et al. Partial volume effect-corrected FDG PET and grey matter volume loss in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(10):1658–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousset OG, Ma Y, Evans AC. Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med 1998;39(5):904–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rousset OG, Collins DL, Rahmin A, Wong DF. Design and implementation of an automated partial volume correction in PET: application to dopamine receptor quantification in the normal human striatum. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1097–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basu S, Alavi A. Feasibility of automated partial-volume correction of SUVs in current PET/CT scanners: can manufacturers provide integrated, ready-to-use software. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1031–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48(6):932–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boussion N, Hatt M, Lamare F, Bizais Y, Turzo A, Cheze-Le Rest C, et al. A multiresolution image based approach for correction of partial volume effects in emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(7):1857–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tohka J, Reilhac A. Deconvolution-based partial volume correction in raclopride-PET and Monte Carlo comparison to MR-based method. Neuroimage 2008;39:1570–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teo BK, Seo Y, Bacharach SL, Carrasquillo JA, Libutti SK, Shukla H, et al. Partial-volume correction in PET: validation of an iterative postreconstruction method with phantom and patient data. J Nucl Med 2007;48(5):802–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirov AS, Piao JZ, Schmidtlein CR. Partial volume effect correction in PET using regularized iterative deconvolution with variance control based on local topology. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:2577–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Cittert PH. Zum einfluss der spaltbreite auf die intensita tsverteilung in spektrallinien. Z Physik 1931;69:298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lucy LB. An iteration technique for the rectification of observed distributions. Astron J 1974;79:745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richardson WH. Bayesian-based Iterative Method of Image Restoration. J Opt Soc Am 1972;62(1):55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang SG, Yu B, Vetterli M. Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression. IEEE Trans Image Process 2000;9(9):1532–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donoho DL. De-noising by soft-thresholding. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 1995;41(3):613–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donoho DL, Johnstone IM. Ideal spatial adaptation via wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 1994;81:425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turkheimer FE, Aston JA, Asselin MC, Hinz R. Multi-resolution Bayesian regression in PET dynamic studies using wavelets. Neuroimage 2006;32(1):111–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalifa J, Laine A, Esser PD. Regularization in tomographic reconstruction using thresholding estimators. IEEE Trans Image Proc 2003;22(3):351–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Starck JL, Murtagh F, Bijaoui A. Image processing and data analysis: the multiscale approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mallat S. A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1989;11:674–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shensa MJ. Discrete wavelet transform: wedding the à trous and Mallat algorithms. IEEE Trans Signal Proc 1992;40(10):2464–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Starck JL, Fadili J, Murtagh F. The undecimated wavelet decomposition and its reconstruction. IEEE Trans Image Proc 2007;16(2):297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Visvikis D, Turzo A, Gouret S, Damien P, Lamare F, Bizais Y, et al. Characterisation of SUV accuracy in FDG PET using 3D RAMLA and the Philips Allegro PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2004;45:103P.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramani S, Blu T, Unser M. Monte-Carlo SURE: a black-box optimization of regularization parameters for general denoising algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Proc 2008;17:1540–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Boussion
    • 1
  • C. Cheze Le Rest
    • 1
  • M. Hatt
    • 1
  • D. Visvikis
    • 1
  1. 1.INSERM, U650, Laboratoire de Traitement de l’Information Médicale (LaTIM) CHU MORVANBrestFrance

Personalised recommendations