Influence of Reconstruction FOV and Matrix Size on the Quantitative Accuracy of FDG-PET: Comparison between OSEM and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood

Mikami, Shuji; Nakamura, Fumitoshi; Nakamura, Akitada; Torizuka, Tatsuo

doi:10.6009/jjrt.2021_jsrt_77.5.454

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To manage the noise, the algorithm is halted before the noise becomes excessive (typically 2–4 iterations) and post-filtered [ 9 , 10 ]. Due to the limitation on the number of iterations used, each image voxel is incompletely converged; hence, quantitative parameters are not estimated correctly [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of various penalty parameter values in Q.Clear algorithm for rectal cancer detection on 18F-FDG images using a BGO-based PET/CT scanner: a phantom and clinical study

Sadeghi,

Sheikhzadeh,

Farzanehfar

et al. 2023

EJNMMI Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Q.Clear algorithm is a fully convergent iterative image reconstruction technique. We hypothesize that different PET/CT scanners with distinct crystal properties will require different optimal settings for the Q.Clear algorithm. Many studies have investigated the improvement of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on PET/CT scanner with LYSO crystals and SiPM detectors. We propose an optimum penalization factor (β) for the detection of rectal cancer and its metastases using a BGO-based detector PET/CT system which obtained via accurate and comprehensive phantom and clinical studies. Methods 18F-FDG PET-CT scans were acquired from NEMA phantom with lesion-to-background ratio (LBR) of 2:1, 4:1, 8:1, and 15 patients with rectal cancer. Clinical lesions were classified into two size groups. OSEM and Q.Clear (β value of 100–500) reconstruction was applied. In Q.Clear, background variability (BV), contrast recovery (CR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), SUVmax, and signal-to-background ratio (SBR) were evaluated and compared to OSEM. Results OSEM had 11.5–18.6% higher BV than Q.Clear using β value of 500. Conversely, RC from OSEM to Q.Clear using β value of 500 decreased by 3.3–7.7% for a sphere with a diameter of 10 mm and 2.5–5.1% for a sphere with a diameter of 37 mm. Furthermore, the increment of contrast using a β value of 500 was 5.2–8.1% in the smallest spheres compared to OSEM. When the β value was increased from 100 to 500, the SNR increased by 49.1% and 30.8% in the smallest and largest spheres at LBR 2:1, respectively. At LBR of 8:1, the relative difference of SNR between β value of 100 and 500 was 43.7% and 44.0% in the smallest and largest spheres, respectively. In the clinical study, as β increased from 100 to 500, the SUVmax decreased by 47.7% in small and 31.1% in large lesions. OSEM demonstrated the least SUVmax, SBR, and contrast. The decrement of SBR and contrast using OSEM were 13.6% and 12.9% in small and 4.2% and 3.4%, respectively, in large lesions. Conclusions Implementing Q.Clear enhances quantitative accuracies through a fully convergent voxel-based image approach, employing a penalization factor. In the BGO-based scanner, the optimal β value for small lesions ranges from 200 for LBR 2:1 to 300 for LBR 8:1. For large lesions, the optimal β value is between 400 for LBR 2:1 and 500 for LBR 8:1. We recommended β value of 300 for small lesions and β value of 500 for large lesions in clinical study.

show abstract