Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Medical Imaging
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
file format pdf download PDF
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Objective

The primary objective of this comparative investigation was to examine the qualitative attributes of image reconstructions utilizing two distinct algorithms, namely OSEM and HYPER Iterative, in total-body 18F- FDG PET/CT under various acquisition durations and injection activities.

Methods

An initial assessment was executed using a NEMA phantom to compare image quality engendered by OSEM and HYPER Iterative algorithms. Parameters such as BV, COV, and CRC were meticulously evaluated. Subsequently, a prospective cohort study was conducted on 50 patients, employing both reconstruction algorithms. The study was compartmentalized into distinct acquisition time and dosage groups. Lesions were further categorized into three size-based groups. Quantifiable metrics including SD of noise, SUV, SNR, and TBR were computed. Additionally, the differences in values, namely ΔSUV, ΔTBR, %ΔSUV, %ΔSD, and %ΔSNR, between OSEM and HYPER Iterative algorithms were also calculated.

Results

The HYPER Iterative algorithm showed reduced BV and COV compared to OSEM in the phantom study, with constant acquisition time. In the clinical study, lesion SUV, TBR, and SNR were significantly elevated in images reconstructed using the HYPER Iterative algorithm in comparison to those generated by OSEM (p < 0.001). Furthermore, an amplified increase in SUV was predominantly discernible in lesions with dimensions less than 10 mm. Metrics such as %ΔSNR and %ΔSD in HYPER Iterative exhibited improvements correlating with reduced acquisition times and dosages, wherein a more pronounced degree of enhancement was observable in both ΔSUV and ΔTBR.

Conclusion

The HYPER Iterative algorithm significantly improves SUV and reduces noise level, with particular efficacy in lesions measuring ≤ 10 mm and under conditions of abbreviated acquisition times and lower dosages.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
2024-03-25
2025-05-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. TanH. GuY. YuH. HuP. ZhangY. MaoW. ShiH. Total-body PET/CT: Current applications and future perspectives.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.2020215232533710.2214/AJR.19.2270532551910
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ZhangX. CherryS.R. XieZ. ShiH. BadawiR.D. QiJ. Subsecond total-body imaging using ultrasensitive positron emission tomography.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA202011752265226710.1073/pnas.191737911731964808
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BadawiR.D. ShiH. HuP. ChenS. XuT. PriceP.M. DingY. SpencerB.A. NardoL. LiuW. BaoJ. JonesT. LiH. CherryS.R. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner.J. Nucl. Med.201960329930310.2967/jnumed.119.22649830733314
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ZhangY.Q. HuP.C. WuR.Z. GuY.S. ChenS.G. YuH.J. WangX.Q. SongJ. ShiH.C. The image quality, lesion detectability, and acquisition time of 18F-FDG total-body PET/CT in oncological patients.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging202047112507251510.1007/s00259‑020‑04823‑w32424483
     [Google Scholar]
  5. SpencerB.A. BergE. SchmallJ.P. OmidvariN. LeungE.K. AbdelhafezY.G. TangS. DengZ. DongY. LvY. BaoJ. LiuW. LiH. JonesT. BadawiR.D. CherryS.R. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2-2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view.J. Nucl. Med.202162686187010.2967/jnumed.120.25059733008932
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Witkowska-PatenaE. BudzyńskaA. GiżewskaA. DziukM. Walęcka-MazurA. Ordered subset expectation maximisation vs Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction algorithm in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT.Ann. Nucl. Med.202034319219910.1007/s12149‑019‑01433‑x31902120
     [Google Scholar]
  7. YangF.J. AiS.Y. WuR. LvY. XieH.F. DongY. MengQ.L. WangF. Impact of total variation regularized expectation maximization reconstruction on the image quality of 68 Ga-PSMA PET: A phantom and patient study.Br. J. Radiol.20219411202020135610.1259/bjr.2020135633571001
     [Google Scholar]
  8. SuiX. TanH. YuH. XiaoJ. QiC. CaoY. ChenS. ZhangY. HuP. ShiH. Exploration of the total-body PET/CT reconstruction protocol with ultra-low 18F-FDG activity over a wide range of patient body mass indices.EJNMMI Phys.2022911710.1186/s40658‑022‑00445‑335239037
     [Google Scholar]
  9. ZhangX. XieZ. BergE. JudenhoferM.S. LiuW. XuT. DingY. LvY. DongY. DengZ. TangS. ShiH. HuP. ChenS. BaoJ. LiH. ZhouJ. WangG. CherryS.R. BadawiR.D. QiJ. Total-body dynamic reconstruction and parametric imaging on the uEXPLORER.J. Nucl. Med.202061228529110.2967/jnumed.119.23056531302637
     [Google Scholar]
  10. LindströmE. SundinA. TrampalC. LindsjöL. IlanE. DanforsT. AntoniG. SörensenJ. LubberinkM. Evaluation of penalized-Likelihood Estimation Reconstruction on a Digital Time-of-Flight PET/CT scanner for 18 F-FDG whole-body examinations.J. Nucl. Med.20185971152115810.2967/jnumed.117.20079029449445
     [Google Scholar]
  11. TanH. SuiX. YinH. YuH. GuY. ChenS. HuP. MaoW. ShiH. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging20214861966197510.1007/s00259‑020‑05091‑433244618
     [Google Scholar]
  12. TrägårdhE. MinarikD. AlmquistH. BitzénU. GarperedS. HvittfeltE. OlssonB. OddstigJ. Impact of acquisition time and penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm on a Si-photomultiplier-based PET-CT system for 18F-FDG.EJNMMI Res.2019916410.1186/s13550‑019‑0535‑431342214
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Reynés-LlompartG. Gámez-CenzanoC. Vercher-ConejeroJ.L. Sabaté-LloberaA. Calvo-MalvarN. Martí-ClimentJ.M. Phantom, clinical, and texture indices evaluation and optimization of a penalized‐likelihood image reconstruction method (Q.Clear) on a BGO PET / CT scanner.Med. Phys.20184573214322210.1002/mp.1298629782657
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HowardB.A. MorganR. ThorpeM.P. TurkingtonT.G. OldanJ. JamesO.G. Borges-NetoS. Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT.Ann. Nucl. Med.201731862362810.1007/s12149‑017‑1192‑128689358
     [Google Scholar]
  15. TeohE.J. McGowanD.R. MacphersonR.E. BradleyK.M. GleesonF.V. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.clear on an LYSO PET/CT system.J. Nucl. Med.20155691447145210.2967/jnumed.115.15930126159585
     [Google Scholar]
  16. AhnS. RossS.G. AsmaE. MiaoJ. JinX. ChengL. WollenweberS.D. ManjeshwarR.M. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET.Phys. Med. Biol.201560155733575110.1088/0031‑9155/60/15/573326158503
     [Google Scholar]
  17. TeohE.J. McGowanD.R. BradleyK.M. BelcherE. BlackE. GleesonF.V. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules.Eur. Radiol.201626257658410.1007/s00330‑015‑3832‑y25991490
     [Google Scholar]
  18. VallotD. CasellesO. ChaltielL. FernandezA. GabiacheE. DierickxL. ZerdoudS. BauriaudM. CourbonF. A clinical evaluation of the impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on PET FDG metrics.Nucl. Med. Commun.2017381197998410.1097/MNM.000000000000072929045338
     [Google Scholar]
  19. ChilcottA.K. BradleyK.M. McGowanD.R. Effect of a bayesian penalized likelihood pet reconstruction compared with ordered subset expectation maximization on clinical image quality over a wide range of patient weights.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.2018210115315710.2214/AJR.17.1806029091008
     [Google Scholar]
  20. OtaniT. HosonoM. KanagakiM. OnishiY. MatsubaraN. KawabataK. KimuraH. Evaluation and optimization of a new PET reconstruction algorithm, bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction, for lung cancer assessment according to lesion size.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.20192132W50W5610.2214/AJR.18.2047830995096
     [Google Scholar]
  21. van der VosC.S. KoopmanD. RijnsdorpS. ArendsA.J. BoellaardR. van DalenJ.A. LubberinkM. WillemsenA.T.M. VisserE.P. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging201744S1Suppl. 141610.1007/s00259‑017‑3727‑z28687866
     [Google Scholar]
  22. WangerinK.A. AhnS. WollenweberS. RossS.G. KinahanP.E. ManjeshwarR.M. Evaluation of lesion detectability in positron emission tomography when using a convergent penalized likelihood image reconstruction method.J. Med. Imaging20164101100210.1117/1.JMI.4.1.01100227921073
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
Loading
Performance of the Iterative OSEM and HYPER Algorithm for Total-body PET at SUVmax with a Low 18F-FDG Activity, a Short Acquisition Time and Small Lesions
Curr. Med. Imaging 20, e15734056274225 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056274225240109112413
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material is available on the publisher’s website along with the published article.

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition time; Image quality; Injection activity; NEMA; Positron-emission tomography; Reconstruction

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test