Dataset Information

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Blob-Based Time-of-Flight PET Image Reconstruction in Hybrid Brain PET/MR Imaging.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Many neurological diseases affect small structures in the brain and, as such, reliable visual evaluation and accurate quantification are required. Recent technological developments made the clinical use of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) systems possible, providing both functional and anatomical information in a single imaging session. Nevertheless, there is a trade-off between spatial resolution and image quality (contrast and noise), which is dictated mainly by the chosen acquisition and reconstruction protocols. Image reconstruction algorithms using spherical symmetric basis functions (blobs) for image representation have a number of additional parameters that impact both the qualitative and quantitative image characteristics. Hence, a detailed investigation of the blob-based reconstruction characteristics using different parameters is needed to achieve optimal reconstruction results.

Procedures

This work evaluated the impact of a range of blob parameters on image quality and quantitative accuracy of brain PET images acquired on the Ingenuity Time-of-Flight (TOF) PET/MR system. Two different phantoms were used to simulate brain imaging applications. Image contrast and noise characteristics were assessed using an image quality phantom. Quantitative performance in a clinical setting was investigated using the Hoffman 3D brain phantom at various count levels. Furthermore, the visual quality of four clinical studies was scored blindly by two experienced physicians to qualitatively evaluate the influence of different reconstruction protocols, hereby providing indications on parameters producing the best image quality.

Results

Quantitative evaluation using the image quality phantom showed that larger basis function radii result in lower contrast recovery (∼2%) and lower variance levels (∼15%). The brain phantom and clinical studies confirmed these observations since lower contrast was seen between anatomical structures. High and low count statistics gave comparable values. The qualitative evaluation of the clinical studies, based on the assessment performed by the physicians, showed a preference towards lower image variance levels with a slightly lower contrast, favoring higher radii and four iterations.

Conclusion

This study systematically evaluated a number of basis function parameters and their quantitative and qualitative effect within PET image reconstruction in the context of brain imaging. A range of blob parameters can minimize error and provided optimal image quality, where the anatomical structures could be recognized but the exact delineation of these structures is simplified in scans with lower image variance levels and thus, higher radii should be preferred. With the optimization of blob parameters, the reconstructed images were found to be qualitatively improved (optimum parameters {d = 2.0375, alpha = 10.4101, radius = 3.9451}) as assessed by the physicians compared to the current clinical protocol. However, this qualitative improvement is task specific, depending on the desired image characteristics to be extracted. Finally, this work could be used as a guide for application-specific optimal parameter selection.

SUBMITTER: Leemans EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4768229 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Numerous image reconstruction methodologies for positron emission tomography (PET) have been developed that incorporate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging structural information, producing reconstructed images with improved suppression of noise and reduced partial volume effects. However, the influence of MR structural information also increases the possibility of suppression or bias of structures present only in the PET data (PET-unique regions). To address this, further developments for MR-informed methods have been proposed, for example, through inclusion of the current reconstructed PET image, alongside the MR image, in the iterative reconstruction process. In this present work, a number of kernel and maximum a posteriori (MAP) methodologies are compared, with the aim of identifying methods that enable a favorable trade-off between the suppression of noise and the retention of unique features present in the PET data. METHODS:The reconstruction methods investigated were: the MR-informed conventional and spatially compact kernel methods, referred to as KEM and KEM largest value sparsification (LVS) respectively; the MR-informed Bowsher and Gaussian MR-guided MAP methods; and the PET-MR-informed hybrid kernel and anato-functional MAP methods. The trade-off between improving the reconstruction of the whole brain region and the PET-unique regions was investigated for all methods in comparison with postsmoothed maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM), evaluated in terms of structural similarity index (SSIM), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), bias, and standard deviation. Both simulated BrainWeb (10 noise realizations) and real [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) three-dimensional datasets were used. The real [18 F]FDG dataset was augmented with simulated tumors to allow comparison of the reconstruction methodologies for the case of known regions of PET-MR discrepancy and evaluated at full counts (100%) and at a reduced (10%) count level. RESULTS:For the high-count simulated and real data studies, the anato-functional MAP method performed better than the other methods under investigation (MR-informed, PET-MR-informed and postsmoothed MLEM), in terms of achieving the best trade-off for the reconstruction of the whole brain and PET-unique regions, assessed in terms of the SSIM, NRMSE, and bias vs standard deviation. The inclusion of PET information in the anato-functional MAP method enables the reconstruction of PET-unique regions to attain similarly low levels of bias as unsmoothed MLEM, while moderately improving the whole brain image quality for low levels of regularization. However, for low count simulated datasets the anato-functional MAP method performs poorly, due to the inclusion of noisy PET information in the regularization term. For the low counts simulated dataset, KEM LVS and to a lesser extent, HKEM performed better than the other methods under investigation in terms of achieving the best trade-off for the reconstruction of the whole brain and PET-unique regions, assessed in terms of the SSIM, NRMSE, and bias vs standard deviation. CONCLUSION:For the reconstruction of noisy data, multiple MR-informed methods produce favorable whole brain vs PET-unique region trade-off in terms of the image quality metrics of SSIM and NRMSE, comfortably outperforming the whole image denoising of postsmoothed MLEM.

Project description:Methods for joint activity reconstruction and attenuation reconstruction of time-of-flight (TOF) PET data provide an effective solution to attenuation correction when no (or incomplete or inaccurate) information on attenuation is available. One of the main barriers limiting use of these methods in clinical practice is their lack of validation in a relatively large patient database. In this contribution, we aim to validate reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity reconstruction and attenuation registration (MLRR) in a whole-body patient dataset. Furthermore, a partial validation (because the scale problem of the algorithm is avoided for now) of reconstruction performed with maximum-likelihood activity and attenuation (MLAA) is also provided. We present a quantitative comparison between these 2 methods of joint reconstruction and the current clinical gold standard, maximum-likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) with CT-based attenuation correction. Methods: The whole-body TOF PET emission data of each patient dataset were processed as a whole to reconstruct an activity volume covering all the acquired bed positions, helping reduce the problem of a scale per bed position in MLAA to a global scale for the entire activity volume. Three reconstruction algorithms were used: MLEM, MLRR, and MLAA. A maximum-likelihood scaling of the single-scatter simulation estimate to the emission data was used for scatter correction. The reconstruction results for various regions of interest were then analyzed. Results: The joint reconstructions of the whole-body patient dataset provided better quantification than the gold standard in cases of PET and CT misalignment caused by patient or organ motion. Our quantitative analysis showed a difference of -4.2% ± 2.3% between MLRR and MLEM and a difference of -7.5% ± 4.6% between MLAA and MLEM, averaged over all regions of interest. Conclusion: Joint reconstruction of activity and attenuation provides a useful means to estimate tracer distribution when CT-based-attenuation images are subject to misalignment or are not available. With an accurate estimate of the scatter contribution in the emission measurements, the joint reconstructions of TOF PET data are within clinically acceptable accuracy.

Project description:ObjectiveSimultaneous PET/MRIs vary in their quantitative PET performance due to inherent differences in the physical systems and differences in the image reconstruction implementation. This variability in quantitative accuracy confounds the ability to meaningfully combine and compare data across scanners. In this work, we define image reconstruction parameters that lead to comparable contrast recovery curves across simultaneous PET/MRI systems.MethodThe NEMA NU-2 image quality phantom was imaged on one GE Signa and on one Siemens mMR PET/MRI scanner. The phantom was imaged at 9.7:1 contrast with standard spheres (diameter 10, 13, 17, 22, 28, 37 mm) and with custom spheres (diameter: 8.5, 11.5, 15, 25, 32.5, 44 mm) using a standardized methodology. Analysis was performed on a 30 min listmode data acquisition and on 6 realizations of 5 min from the listmode data. Images were reconstructed with the manufacturer provided iterative image reconstruction algorithms with and without point spread function (PSF) modeling. For both scanners, a post-reconstruction Gaussian filter of 3-7 mm in steps of 1 mm was applied. Attenuation correction was provided from a scaled computed tomography (CT) image of the phantom registered to the MR-based attenuation images and verified to align on the non-attenuation corrected PET images. For each of these image reconstruction parameter sets, contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) were determined for the SUVmean, SUVmax and SUVpeak for each sphere. A hybrid metric combining the root-mean-squared discrepancy (RMSD) and the absolute CRC values was used to simultaneously optimize for best match in CRC between the two scanners while simultaneously weighting toward higher resolution reconstructions. The image reconstruction parameter set was identified as the best candidate reconstruction for each vendor for harmonized PET image reconstruction.ResultsThe range of clinically relevant image reconstruction parameters demonstrated widely different quantitative performance across cameras. The best match of CRC curves was obtained at the lowest RMSD values with: for CRCmean, 2 iterations-7 mm filter on the GE Signa and 4 iterations-6 mm filter on the Siemens mMR, for CRCmax, 4 iterations-6 mm filter on the GE Signa, 4 iterations-5 mm filter on the Siemens mMR and for CRCpeak, 4 iterations-7 mm filter with PSF on the GE Signa and 4 iterations-7 mm filter on the Siemens mMR. Over all reconstructions, the RMSD between CRCs was 1.8%, 3.6% and 2.9% for CRC mean, max and peak, respectively. The solution of 2 iterations-3 mm on the GE Signa and 4 iterations-3 mm on Siemens mMR, both with PSF, led to simultaneous harmonization and with high CRC and low RMSD for CRC mean, max and peak with RMSD values of 2.8%, 5.8% and 3.2%, respectively.ConclusionsFor two commercially available PET/MRI scanners, user-selectable parameters that control iterative updates, image smoothing and PSF modeling provide a range of contrast recovery curves that allow harmonization in harmonization strategies of optimal match in CRC or high CRC values. This work demonstrates that nearly identical CRC curves can be obtained on different commercially available scanners by selecting appropriate image reconstruction parameters.