Performance comparison of two resolution modeling PET reconstruction algorithms in terms of physical figures of merit used in quantitative imaging. Issue 5 (July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matheoud, R.; Ferrando, O.; Valzano, S.; Lizio, D.; Sacchetti, G.; Ciarmiello, A.; Foppiano, F.; Brambilla, M.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 31:Issue 5(2015)
• Page Start: 468
• Page End: 475
• Publication Date: 2015-07
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

<abstract xml:lang="en" abstract-type="author" id="abs0010"> <title id="sectitle0010">Abstract</title> <sec> <title id="sectitle0015">Purpose</title> <p id="abspara0010">Resolution modeling (RM) of PET systems has been introduced in iterative reconstruction algorithms for oncologic PET. The RM recovers the loss of resolution and reduces the associated partial volume effect. While these methods improved the observer performance, particularly in the detection of small and faint lesions, their impact on quantification accuracy still requires thorough investigation. The aim of this study was to characterize the performances of the RM algorithms under controlled conditions simulating a typical <sup>18</sup>F-FDG oncologic study, using an anthropomorphic phantom and selected physical figures of merit, used for image quantification.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0020">Methods</title> <p id="abspara0015">Measurements were performed on Biograph HiREZ (B_HiREZ) and Discovery 710 (D_710) PET/CT scanners and reconstructions were performed using the standard iterative reconstructions and the RM algorithms associated to each scanner: TrueX and SharpIR, respectively.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0025">Results</title> <p id="abspara0020">RM determined a significant improvement in contrast recovery for small targets (≤17 mm diameter) only for the D_710 scanner. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV<sub>max</sub>) increased when RM was applied using both scanners. The SUV<sub>max</sub> of small targets was on average lower with the B_HiREZ than with the D_710. Sharp IR improved the accuracy of SUV<sub>max</sub> determination, whilst TrueX showed an overestimation of SUV<sub>max</sub> for sphere dimensions greater than 22 mm. The goodness of fit of adaptive threshold algorithms worsened significantly when RM algorithms were employed for both scanners.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0030">Conclusions</title> <p id="abspara0025">Differences in general quantitative performance were observed for the PET scanners analyzed. Segmentation of PET images using adaptive threshold algorithms should not be undertaken in conjunction with RM reconstructions.</p> </sec> </abstract>