| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Basic Science Investigations |
1 Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2 Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Orsay, France
3 Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
4 Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
We compare 3 image reconstruction algorithms for use in 3-dimensional (3D) whole-body PET oncology imaging. We have previously shown that combining Fourier rebinning (FORE) with 2-dimensional (2D) statistical image reconstruction via the ordered-subsets expectation-maximization (OSEM) and attenuation-weighted OSEM (AWOSEM) algorithms demonstrates improvements in image signal-to-noise ratios compared with the commonly used analytic 3D reprojection (3DRP) or FORE+FBP (2D filtered backprojection) reconstruction methods. To assess the impact of these reconstruction methods on detecting and localizing small lesions, we performed a human observer study comparing the different reconstruction methods. The observer study used the same volumetric visualization software tool that is used in clinical practice, instead of a planar viewing mode as is generally used with the standard receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. This change in the human evaluation strategy disallowed the use of a ROC analysis, so instead we compared the fraction of actual targets found and reported (fraction-found) and also investigated the use of an alternative free-response operating characteristic (AFROC) analysis. Methods: We used a non-Monte Carlo technique to generate 50 statistically accurate realizations of 3D whole-body PET data based on an extended mathematic cardiac torso (MCAT) phantom and with noise levels typical of clinical scans performed on a PET scanner. To each realization, we added 7 randomly located 1-cm-diameter lesions (targets) whose contrasts were varied to sample the range of detectability. These targets were inserted in 3 organs of interest: lungs, liver, and soft tissues. The images were reconstructed with 3 reconstruction strategies (FORE+OSEM, FORE+AWOSEM, and FORE+FBP). Five human observers reported (localized and rated) 7 targets within each volume image. An observer’s performance accuracy with each algorithm was measured, as a function of the lesion contrast and organ type, by the fraction of those targets reported and by the area below the AFROC curve. This AFROC curve plots the fraction of reported targets at each rating threshold against the fraction of cases with (
1) similarly rated false reports. Results: Images reconstructed with FORE+AWOSEM yielded the best overall target detection as compared with FORE+FBP and FORE+OSEM, although these differences in detectability were region specific. The FORE+FBP and FORE+AWOSEM algorithms had similar performances for liver targets. The FORE+OSEM algorithm performed significantly worse at target detection, especially in the liver. We speculate that this is the result of using an incorrect statistical model for OSEM and that the incorporation of attenuation weighting in AWOSEM largely compensates for this model inaccuracy. These results were consistent for both the fraction of actual targets found and the AFROC analysis. Conclusion: We demonstrated the efficacy of performing observer detection studies using the same visualization tools as those used in clinical PET oncology imaging. These studies demonstrated that the FORE+AWOSEM algorithm led to the best overall detection and localization performance for 1-cm-diameter targets compared with the FORE+OSEM and FORE+FBP algorithms.
Key Words: PET • observer performance • detection and localization • alternate free-response operating characteristic analysis • image reconstruction algorithms
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. El Fakhri, P. A. Santos, R. D. Badawi, C. H. Holdsworth, A. D. Van Den Abbeele, and M. F. Kijewski Impact of Acquisition Geometry, Image Processing, and Patient Size on Lesion Detection in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 1951 - 1960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Borjesson, M. Hakansson, M. Bath, S. Kheddache, S. Svensson, A. Tingberg, A. Grahn, M. Ruschin, B. Hemdal, S. Mattsson, et al. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 45 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Brasse, P. E. Kinahan, C. Lartizien, C. Comtat, M. Casey, and C. Michel Correction Methods for Random Coincidences in Fully 3D Whole-Body PET: Impact on Data and Image Quality J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2005; 46(5): 859 - 867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lubberink, R. Boellaard, A. P. van der Weerdt, F. C. Visser, and A. A. Lammertsma Quantitative Comparison of Analytic and Iterative Reconstruction Methods in 2- and 3-Dimensional Dynamic Cardiac 18F-FDG PET J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2004; 45(12): 2008 - 2015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Boellaard, N. C. Krak, O. S. Hoekstra, and A. A. Lammertsma Effects of Noise, Image Resolution, and ROI Definition on the Accuracy of Standard Uptake Values: A Simulation Study J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 1519 - 1527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Lartizien, P. E. Kinahan, and C. Comtat A Lesion Detection Observer Study Comparing 2-Dimensional Versus Fully 3-Dimensional Whole-Body PET Imaging Protocols J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2004; 45(4): 714 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Bai, P. E. Kinahan, D. Brasse, C. Comtat, D. W. Townsend, C. C. Meltzer, V. Villemagne, M. Charron, and M. Defrise An Analytic Study of the Effects of Attenuation on Tumor Detection in Whole-Body PET Oncology Imaging J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 1855 - 1861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
