Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Image accuracy and quality test in rate constant depending on reconstruction algorithms with and without incorporating PSF and TOF in PET imaging

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Positron emission tomography allows imaging of patho-physiological information as a form of rate constants from scanned and reconstructed dynamic image. Some reconstruction algorithms incorporated with time of flight and point spread function have been developed, and quantitative accuracy and quality in the image have been investigated. However, feasibility of the rate constants from the dynamic image has not been directly investigated. We investigated the accuracy and quality in the rate constant by scanning a phantom filled simultaneously with 11C and 18F.

Method

We utilized a phantom filled with 18F–F− solution in the main cylinder and with 11C-flumazenil solution in seven sub-cylinders. The phantom was scanned by a Biograph mCT and the scanned data were reconstructed with FBP- and OSEM-based algorithms incorporating with and without TOF and/or PSF corrections. Decay rate images as kinetic rate constant were computed for all the reconstructed images and quantitative accuracy and quality in the rate images were investigated.

Results

The obtained decay rates were not significantly different from the reference values for both isotopes for all applied algorithms when noise on image was not large. Respective SD was smaller in OSEM with TOF in the 11C-filled region.

Conclusion

The present study suggests that OSEM incorporating with TOF provides reasonable quantitative accuracy and image quality regarding decay rates.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Watabe H, Ikoma Y, Kimura Y, Naganawa M, Shidahara M. PET kinetic analysis—compartmental model. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:583–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Peng H, Levin CS. Recent developments in PET instrumentation. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11:555–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges. Imaging Med. 2010;2:529–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:808–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lubberink M, Boellaard R, van der Weerdt AP, Visser FC, Lammertsma AA. Quantitative comparison of analytic and iterative reconstruction methods in 2- and 3-dimensional dynamic cardiac 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:2008–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Søndergaard HM, Boisen K, Bøttcher M, Schmitz O, Nielsen TT, Bøtker HE, et al. Evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) versus filtered back-projection for the assessment of myocardial glucose uptake and myocardial perfusion using dynamic PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:320–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. Nucl Med. 2007;48:471–80.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394–441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:1453–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, Hubner KF, Barker DW, Casey ME, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of- flight (TOF) information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 30 PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1716–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koeppe RA, Holden JE, Ip WR. Performance comparison of parameter estimation techniques for the quantitation of local cerebral blood flow by dynamic positron computed tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985;5:224–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Phelps ME, Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, Selin C, Sokoloff L, Kuhl DE. Tomographic measurement of local cerebral glucose metabolic rate in humans with (F-18) 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose: validation of method. Ann Neurol. 1979;6:371–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koeppe RA, Holthoff VA, Frey KA, Kilbourn MR, Kuhl DE. Compartmental analysis of [11C]flumazenil kinetics for the estimation of ligand transport rate and receptor distribution using positron emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1991;11:735–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schiepers C, Dahlbom M, Chen W, Cloughesy T, Czernin J, Phelps ME, et al. Kinetics of 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine during treatment monitoring of recurrent high-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:720–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gunn RN, Lammertsma AA, Hume SP, Cunningham VJ. Parametric imaging of ligand-receptor binding in PET using a simplified reference region model. Neuroimage. 1997;6:279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Watabe H, Jino H, Kawachi N, Teramoto N, Hayashi T, Ohta Y, Iida H. Parametric imaging of myocardial blood flow with 15O-water and PET using the basis function method. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1219–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boellaard R, Knaapen P, Rijbroek A, Luurtsema GJ, Lammertsma AA. Evaluation of basis function and linear least squares methods for generating parametric blood flow images using 15O-water and positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging Biol. 2005;7:273–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kudomi N, Koivuviita N, Liukko KE, Oikonen VJ, Tolvanen T, Iida H, et al. Parametric renal blood flow imaging using [15O]H2O and PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:683–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kudomi N, Hirano Y, Koshino K, Hayashi T, Watabe H, Fukushima K, et al. Rapid quantitative CBF and CMRO2 measurements from a single PET scan with sequential administration of dual 15O-labeled tracers. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33:440–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image-reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liow JS, Strother SC, Rehm K, Rottenberg DA. Improved resolution for PET volume imaging through three-dimensional iterative reconstruction. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1623–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bai B, Esser PD. The effect of edge artifacts on quantification of positron emission tomography. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference record. 2010; pp 2263–6.

  28. Nakamura A, Tanizaki Y, Takeuchi M, Ito S, Sano Y, Sato M, et al. Impact of point spread function correction in standardized uptake value quantitation for positron emission tomography images: a study based on phantom experiments and clinical images. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2014;70:542–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the staff at Department of Clinical Radiology in our University Hospital and at Department of Medical Physics in our University. The work of NK was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, a grant-in-aid for JSPS KAKENHI (C) Grant number 26460728 (2014–2017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Social and Environmental Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kagawa University, Miki-cho, Kagawa, Japan

    Yukito Maeda

  2. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kagawa University Hospital, Miki-cho, Kagawa, Japan

    Yukito Maeda

  3. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Miki-cho, Kagawa, Japan

    Nobuyuki Kudomi & Hiroyuki Yamamoto

  4. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Miki-cho, Kagawa, Japan

    Yuka Yamamoto & Yoshihiro Nishiyama

Authors
  1. Yukito Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nobuyuki Kudomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroyuki Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuka Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoshihiro Nishiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yukito Maeda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maeda, Y., Kudomi, N., Yamamoto, H. et al. Image accuracy and quality test in rate constant depending on reconstruction algorithms with and without incorporating PSF and TOF in PET imaging. Ann Nucl Med 29, 561–569 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-0979-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-0979-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation