Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on 18F-FDG PET/CT: comparison with ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction incorporating time-of-flight model and point spread function correction

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

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the value of Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT) as compared with the ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction incorporating time-of-flight (TOF) model and point-spread-function (PSF) correction.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with primary or metastatic lung cancers who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT were retrospectively studied. PET images were reconstructed with OSEM + TOF, OSEM + TOF + PSF, and BPL with noise penalty strength β-value of 200, 400, 600, and 800. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was determined in normal liver parenchyma. Lung lesion conspicuity was evaluated in 50 lung lesions by using a 4-point scale (0, no visible; 1, poor; 2, good; 3, excellent conspicuity). Two observers were independently asked to choose the most preferred reconstruction for detecting the lung lesions on a per-patient level. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was measured in each of the 50 lung lesions.

Results

Liver SNR on the images reconstructed by BPL with β-value of 600 and 800 (17.8 ± 3.7 and 22.5 ± 4.6, respectively) was significantly higher than that by OSEM + TOF + PSF (15.0 ± 3.4, p < 0.0001). BPL with β-value of 600 was chosen most frequently as the preferred reconstruction algorithm for lung lesion assessment by both observers. The conspicuity score of the lung lesions < 10 mm in diameter on images reconstructed by BPL with β-value of 600 was significantly greater than that with OSEM + TOF + PSF (2.2 ± 0.8 vs 1.6 ± 0.9, p < 0.0001), while the conspicuity score of the lesions ≥ 10 mm in diameter was not significantly different between BPL with β-value of 600 and OSEM + TOF + PSF. The mean SUVmax was increased by BPL with β-value of 600 for the lung lesions with < 10 mm in diameter, compared to OSEM + TOF + PSF (3.4 ± 3.1 to 4.2 ± 3.5, p = 0.001). In contrast, BPL with β-value of 600 did not provide increased SUVmax for the lesions  ≥ 10 mm in diameter.

Conclusion

BPL reconstruction significantly improves the detection of small inconspicuous malignant tumors in the lung, improving the diagnostic performance of PET/CT.

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. Maffione AM, Grassetto G, Rampin L, Chondrogiannis S, Marzola MC, Ambrosini V, et al. Molecular imaging of pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:W217–W223223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1388–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:914–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Varrone A, Sjoholm N, Eriksson L, Gulyas B, Halldin C, Farde L. Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1639–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  Google Scholar 

  9. 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  Google Scholar 

  10. Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Penuelas I, Richter JA, Marti-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:103–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahn S, Ross SG, Asma E, Miao J, Jin X, Cheng L, et al. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5733–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1447–522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Moore A, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of histopathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a penalised likelihood reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4098–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, Teoh EJ, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:1873–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fukukita H, Suzuki K, Matsumoto K, Terauchi T, Daisaki H, Ikari Y, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 2.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:693–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Gleeson FV. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:576–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard BA, Morgan R, Thorpe MP, Turkington TG, Oldan J, James OG, et al. Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:623–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394–411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan

    Yoshie Kurita, Yasutaka Ichikawa, Yoya Tomita & Hajime Sakuma

  2. Department of Radiology, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, 102 Kobou, Kawai, Matsusaka, Mie, 515-8566, Japan

    Toshihiro Nakanishi, Daisuke Hasegawa, Shuichi Murashima & Tadanori Hirano

Authors
  1. Yoshie Kurita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasutaka Ichikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toshihiro Nakanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoya Tomita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daisuke Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shuichi Murashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tadanori Hirano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hajime Sakuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasutaka Ichikawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest or industry financial support for this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurita, Y., Ichikawa, Y., Nakanishi, T. et al. The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on 18F-FDG PET/CT: comparison with ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction incorporating time-of-flight model and point spread function correction. Ann Nucl Med 34, 272–279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01446-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01446-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation