Erratum to: Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification

Study of the Effect of Reconstruction Parameters for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in PET With a Novel Flow Phantom

“…Finally, the results from the analysis of Q.Clear reconstructions are in line with the study of O'Doherty et al [12]. They reported that the Q.Clear noise level is correspondent to the OSEM reconstruction when the value of β = 300 was used.…”

“…In our study, the Q.Clear AUC values are in relation with the OSEM-TOF-PSF reconstructions that apply different matrix sizes and GFS values as well as with OSEM-TOF reconstruction when the default value of β = 350 was used. The minor difference in the β value might be due to different PET/CT systems applied in our study versus the study in [12]. Similarly, O'Doherty et al [12] showed that the Q.Clear effect to the quantification of MBF is minor, as can also be seen from our study as the imagederived flow values were similar with the Q.Clear reconstruction compared to other reconstructions.…”

“…Previously, O'Doherty et al [12] suggested applying a physical reference standard to determine the effects of different PET image reconstruction parameters in dynamic PET studies. We applied a dynamic flow phantom that provides accurate and precise flow measurements by two-compartmental kinetic modeling from image-derived TACs.…”

“…They showed no differences in MBF with or without TOF with the PET/MR system. In addition, O'Doherty et al [12] studied the Q.Clear reconstruction in [ 13 N]NH 3 perfusion studies showing no adverse effect on MBF quantification.…”

“…However, it would be of interest to study also parameters that represent the dynamic state and the kinetics of the MBF. O'Doherty et al [12] suggested that a phantom representing myocardial perfusion should be used as a standard for kinetic modeling in comparison of reconstruction methods.…”