Browse > Article

Performance Evaluation of Reconstruction Algorithms for DMIDR  

Kwak, In-Suk (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center)
Lee, Hyuk (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center)
Moon, Seung-Cheol (GE Healthcare Korea)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology / v.23, no.2, 2019 , pp. 29-37 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose DMIDR(Discovery Molecular Imaging Digital Ready, General Electric Healthcare, USA) is a PET/CT scanner designed to allow application of PSF(Point Spread Function), TOF(Time of Flight) and Q.Clear algorithm. Especially, Q.Clear is a reconstruction algorithm which can overcome the limitation of OSEM(Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization) and reduce the image noise based on voxel unit. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the performance of reconstruction algorithms and optimize the algorithm combination to improve the accurate SUV(Standardized Uptake Value) measurement and lesion detectability. Materials and Methods PET phantom was filled with $^{18}F-FDG$ radioactivity concentration ratio of hot to background was in a ratio of 2:1, 4:1 and 8:1. Scan was performed using the NEMA protocols. Scan data was reconstructed using combination of (1)VPFX(VUE point FX(TOF)), (2)VPHD-S(VUE Point HD+PSF), (3)VPFX-S (TOF+PSF), (4)QCHD-S-400((VUE Point HD+Q.Clear(${\beta}-strength$ 400)+PSF), (5)QCFX-S-400(TOF +Q.Clear(${\beta}-strength$ 400)+PSF), (6)QCHD-S-50(VUE Point HD+Q.Clear(${\beta}-strength$ 50)+PSF) and (7)QCFX-S-50(TOF+Q.Clear(${\beta}-strength$ 50)+PSF). CR(Contrast Recovery) and BV(Background Variability) were compared. Also, SNR(Signal to Noise Ratio) and RC(Recovery Coefficient) of counts and SUV were compared respectively. Results VPFX-S showed the highest CR value in sphere size of 10 and 13 mm, and QCFX-S-50 showed the highest value in spheres greater than 17 mm. In comparison of BV and SNR, QCFX-S-400 and QCHD-S-400 showed good results. The results of SUV measurement were proportional to the H/B ratio. RC for SUV is in inverse proportion to the H/B ratio and QCFX-S-50 showed highest value. In addition, reconstruction algorithm of Q.Clear using 400 of ${\beta}-strength$ showed lower value. Conclusion When higher ${\beta}-strength$ was applied Q.Clear showed better image quality by reducing the noise. On the contrary, lower ${\beta}-strength$ was applied Q.Clear showed that sharpness increase and PVE(Partial Volume Effect) decrease, so it is possible to measure SUV based on high RC comparing to conventional reconstruction conditions. An appropriate choice of these reconstruction algorithm can improve the accuracy and lesion detectability. In this reason, it is necessary to optimize the algorithm parameter according to the purpose.
Keywords
DMIDR; Q.Clear; Contrast Recovery(CR); Background Variability(BV);
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ell PJ, The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 2006;79:32-36.   DOI
2 Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med 2016:46;5-19.   DOI
3 Gabriel Reynes-Llompart1, Cristina Gamez-Cenzano1, Inmaculada Romero-Zayas1, Laura Rodriguez-Bel1, Jose L. Vercher-Conejero1, and Josep M. Marti-Climent2. Performance Characteristics of the Whole-Body Discovery IQ PET/CT System. J Nucl Med 2017; 58:1155-1161.   DOI
4 윤석환. PET/CT에서 Phantom을 이용한 Fluorine-18, Gallium-68 방사성 핵종의 PET 영상 평가. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology, 41(4), 321-327   DOI
5 Margaret E. Daube-Witherspoon, PhD1; Joel S. Karp, PhD1; Michael E. Casey, PhD2; Frank P. DiFilippo, PhD3; Horace Hines, PhD4; Gerd Muehllehner, PhD5; Vilim Simcic, PhD6; Charles W. Stearns, PhD7; Lars-Eric Adam, PhD1; Steve Kohlmyer, MS7,8; and Vesna Sossi, PhD9. PET Performance Measurements Using the NEMA NU 2-2001 Standard. NEMA NU 2-2001 Standard. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1398-1409.
6 Gopal B. Saha, PhD. Basics of PET Imaging: Physics, Chemistry, and Regulations. 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. p.70-71.
7 식품의약품안전평가원. PET/CT 안전성 및 성능평가 시험 방법 가이드라인. 2015.02. p. 25-28.
8 Steve Ross, PhD. Q.Clear. 2013. General Electric Company.
9 Eugene J. Teoh1,2 & Daniel R. McGowan2,3 & Kevin M. Bradley1 & Elizabeth Belcher4 & Edward Black4 & Fergus V. Gleeson1,2. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol (2016) 26:576-584.   DOI
10 Eugene J. Teoh*1,2, Daniel R. McGowan*2,3, Ruth E. Macpherson1, Kevin M. Bradley1, and Fergus V. Gleeson1,2. Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1447-1452   DOI
11 Dale L Bailey, David W Townsed, Peter E Valk, Michael N Maisey(Eds). Positron Emission Tomography Basic sciences. Spinger-Verlag London Limited; 2005.p121-122.
12 Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27(7):647-55.   DOI
13 Mark van Heijl, Jikke M. Omloo, Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Jan J. van Lanschot, Gerrit W. Sloof and Ronald Boellaard.Influence of ROI definition, partial volume correction and SUV normalization on SUV-survival correlation in oesophageal cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications 2010;31:652-658.   DOI
14 V. Bettinardi, I. Castiglioni, E. De Bernardi, M. C. Gilardi, PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clin Transl Imaging (2014) 2:199-218 DOI 10.1007/s40336-014-0066-y.   DOI
15 Nikie J. Hoetjes & Floris H. P. van Velden & Otto S. Hoekstra & Corneline J. Hoekstra & Nanda C. Krak & Adriaan A.Lammertsma & Ronald Boellaard. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1679-1687.   DOI
16 고현수.박순기.최재민.김정선.정우영. 부분 체적 효과에서 회복 계수를 이용한 보정 전과 후 SUV의 비교 분석. Nucl Med Technol. Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2011.