Abstract
Noise levels observed in positron emission tomography (PET) images complicate their geometric interpretation. Post-processing techniques aimed at noise reduction may be employed to overcome this problem. The detailed characteristics of the noise affecting PET images are, however, often not well known. Typically, it is assumed that overall the noise may be characterized as Gaussian. Other PET-imaging-related studies have been specifically aimed at the reduction of noise represented by a Poisson or mixed Poisson + Gaussian model. The effectiveness of any approach to noise reduction greatly depends on a proper quantification of the characteristics of the noise present. This work examines the statistical properties of noise in PET images acquired with a GEMINI PET/CT scanner. Noise measurements have been performed with a cylindrical phantom injected with 11C and well mixed to provide a uniform activity distribution. Images were acquired using standard clinical protocols and reconstructed with filtered-backprojection (FBP) and row-action maximum likelihood algorithm (RAMLA). Statistical properties of the acquired data were evaluated and compared to five noise models (Poisson, normal, negative binomial, log-normal, and gamma). Histograms of the experimental data were used to calculate cumulative distribution functions and produce maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters of the model distributions. Results obtained confirm the poor representation of both RAMLA- and FBP-reconstructed PET data by the Poisson distribution. We demonstrate that the noise in RAMLA-reconstructed PET images is very well characterized by gamma distribution followed closely by normal distribution, while FBP produces comparable conformity with both normal and gamma statistics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Caldwell CB, et al: Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: The impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(4):923–931, 2001
Sailer SL, et al: Improving treatment planning accuracy through multimodality imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35(1):117–124, 1996
Bar-Shalom R, et al: Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: Additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 44(8):1200–1209, 2003
Bradley JD, et al: Implementing biologic target volumes in radiation treatment planning for non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 45(Suppl 1):96S–101S, 2004
Drever LA: Positron emission tomography target volume delineation xiv + 134. Thesis, University of Alberta, 2005
Pieterman RM, et al: Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 343(4):254–261, 2000
Kubota K, et al: Differential diagnosis of lung tumor with positron emission tomography: A prospective study. J Nucl Med 31(12):1927–1932, 1990
Weber W, et al: Assessment of pulmonary lesions with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron imaging using coincidence mode gamma cameras. J Nucl Med 40(4):574–578, 1999
Vardi Y, Shepp LA, Kaufman L: A statistical model for positron emission tomography. J Amer Stat Assoc 80(389):8–20, 1985
Tsui BM, et al: Analysis of recorded image noise in nuclear medicine. Phys Med Biol 26(5):883–902, 1981
Rzeszotarski MS: Counting statistics. Radiographics 19(3):765–782, 1999
Rowe RW, Dai S: A pseudo-Poisson noise model for simulation of positron emission tomographic projection data. Med Phys 19(4):1113–1119, 1992
Lange K, Carson R: EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8(2):306–316, 1984
Shepp LA, Vardi Y: Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1(2):113–122, 1982
Shepp LA, Logan BF: Fourier reconstruction of a head section. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci NS21(3):21–43, 1974
Kadrmas DJ: LOR-OSEM: Statistical PET reconstruction from raw line-of-response histograms. Phys Med Biol 49(20):4731–4744, 2004
Razifar P: Novel approaches for application of principal component analysis on dynamic pet images for improvement of image quality and clinical diagnosis. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology, x + 89, 2005
Wahl RL: In: Wahl RL Ed. Principles and Practice of Positron Emission Tomography. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2002, p 442
Green GC: Wavelet-based denoising of cardiac PET data xiv + 135. Dissertation, Carleton University, 2005
Ollinger JM, Fessler JA: Positron-emission tomography. EEE Signal Process Mag 14(1):43–55, 1997
Coxson PG, Huesman RH, Borland L: Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data. J Nucl Med 38(4):660–667, 1997
Slifstein M, Mawlawi OR, Laruelle M: Chapter 11 (816): Partial volume effect correction: Methodological considerations. In: Gjedde A, Hansen SB, Knudsen GM, Paulson OB Eds. Physiological Imaging of the Brain with PET. Academic, San Diego, 2000, p 413
Rodrigues I, Sanches J, Bioucas-Dias J: Denoising of medical images corrupted by poisson noise. 15th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 1–5(ICIP 2008):1756–1759, 2008
Hannequin P, Mas J: Statistical and heuristic image noise extraction (SHINE): A new method for processing Poisson noise in scintigraphic images. Phys Med Biol 47(24):4329–4344, 2002
Němeček P: Filtrace šumu ve scintigrafických snímcích metodou založenou na Correspondence Analysis. v + 47, 2006
Seret A, Vanhove C, Defrise M: Resolution improvement and noise reduction in human pinhole SPECT using a multi-ray approach and the SHINE method. Nuklearmedizin 48(4):159–165, 2009
Budinger TF, et al: Quantitative potentials of dynamic emission computed tomography. J Nucl Med 19(3):309–315, 1978
Browne J, de Pierro AB: A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihood in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imag 15(5):687–699, 1996
Mandelkern MA: Nuclear techniques for medical imaging: Positron emission tomography. Annu Rev Nucl Part Sci 45:205–254, 1995
Wilson DW, Tsui BMW: Noise properties of filtered-backprojection and ML-EM reconstructed emission tomographic images. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 40(4):1198–1203, 1993
Soares EJ, Byrne CL, Glick SJ: Noise characterization of block-iterative reconstruction algorithms: I. Theory. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19(4):261–270, 2000
Tanaka E, Kudo H: Subset-dependent relaxation in block-iterative algorithms for image reconstruction in emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 48(10):1405–1422, 2003
Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J Roy Stat Soc B Meth 39(1):1–38, 1977
Hudson HM, Larkin RS: Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13(4):601–609, 1994
Gonzalez RC, Woods RE: Digital Image Processing, 3rd edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2008, p 954
NIST/SEMATECH: e-handbook of statistical methods. 2006(07/05/2006), 2010
Hilbe J: Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p 251
Barrett HH, Wilson DW, Tsui BM: Noise properties of the EM algorithm: I. Theory. Phys Med Biol 39(5):833–846, 1994
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teymurazyan, A., Riauka, T., Jans, HS. et al. Properties of Noise in Positron Emission Tomography Images Reconstructed with Filtered-Backprojection and Row-Action Maximum Likelihood Algorithm. J Digit Imaging 26, 447–456 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9511-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9511-5