Dataset Information

SMART (SiMulAtion and ReconsTruction) PET: an efficient PET simulation-reconstruction tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Positron-emission tomography (PET) simulators are frequently used for development and performance evaluation of segmentation methods or quantitative uptake metrics. To date, most PET simulation tools are based on Monte Carlo simulations, which are computationally demanding. Other analytical simulation tools lack the implementation of time of flight (TOF) or resolution modelling (RM). In this study, a fast and easy-to-use PET simulation-reconstruction package, SiMulAtion and ReconsTruction (SMART)-PET, is developed and validated, which includes both TOF and RM. SMART-PET, its documentation and instructions to calibrate the tool to a specific PET/CT system are available on Zenodo. SMART-PET allows the fast generation of 3D PET images. As input, it requires one image representing the activity distribution and one representing the corresponding CT image/attenuation map. It allows the user to adjust different parameters, such as reconstruction settings (TOF/RM), noise level or scan duration. Furthermore, a random spatial shift can be included, representing patient repositioning. To evaluate the tool, simulated images were compared with real scan data of the NEMA NU 2 image quality phantom. The scan was acquired as a 60-min list-mode scan and reconstructed with and without TOF and/or RM. For every reconstruction setting, ten statistically equivalent images, representing 30, 60, 120 and 300 s scan duration, were generated. Simulated and real-scan data were compared regarding coefficient of variation in the phantom background and activity recovery coefficients (RCs) of the spheres. Furthermore, standard deviation images of each of the ten statistically equivalent images were compared.

Results

SMART-PET produces images comparable to actual phantom data. The image characteristics of simulated and real PET images varied in similar ways as function of reconstruction protocols and noise levels. The change in image noise with variation of simulated TOF settings followed the theoretically expected behaviour. RC as function of sphere size agreed within 0.3-11% between simulated and actual phantom data.

Conclusions

SMART-PET allows for rapid and easy simulation of PET data. The user can change various acquisition and reconstruction settings (including RM and TOF) and noise levels. The images obtained show similar image characteristics as those seen in actual phantom data.

SUBMITTER: Pfaehler E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6141406 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

SMART (SiMulAtion and ReconsTruction) PET: an efficient PET simulation-reconstruction tool.

Pfaehler Elisabeth E De Jong Johan R JR Dierckx Rudi A J O RAJO van Velden Floris H P FHP Boellaard Ronald R

EJNMMI physics 20180918 1

<h4>Background</h4>Positron-emission tomography (PET) simulators are frequently used for development and performance evaluation of segmentation methods or quantitative uptake metrics. To date, most PET simulation tools are based on Monte Carlo simulations, which are computationally demanding. Other analytical simulation tools lack the implementation of time of flight (TOF) or resolution modelling (RM). In this study, a fast and easy-to-use PET simulation-reconstruction package, SiMulAtion and Re ...[more]

PMID: 30225675

Similar Datasets

Project description:Simulation of x-ray projection images plays an important role in cone beam CT (CBCT) related research projects, such as the design of reconstruction algorithms or scanners. A projection image contains primary signal, scatter signal, and noise. It is computationally demanding to perform accurate and realistic computations for all of these components. In this work, the authors develop a package on graphics processing unit (GPU), called gDRR, for the accurate and efficient computations of x-ray projection images in CBCT under clinically realistic conditions.The primary signal is computed by a trilinear ray-tracing algorithm. A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is then performed, yielding the primary signal and the scatter signal, both with noise. A denoising process specifically designed for Poisson noise removal is applied to obtain a smooth scatter signal. The noise component is then obtained by combining the difference between the MC primary and the ray-tracing primary signals, and the difference between the MC simulated scatter and the denoised scatter signals. Finally, a calibration step converts the calculated noise signal into a realistic one by scaling its amplitude according to a specified mAs level. The computations of gDRR include a number of realistic features, e.g., a bowtie filter, a polyenergetic spectrum, and detector response. The implementation is fine-tuned for a GPU platform to yield high computational efficiency.For a typical CBCT projection with a polyenergetic spectrum, the calculation time for the primary signal using the ray-tracing algorithms is 1.2-2.3 s, while the MC simulations take 28.1-95.3 s, depending on the voxel size. Computation time for all other steps is negligible. The ray-tracing primary signal matches well with the primary part of the MC simulation result. The MC simulated scatter signal using gDRR is in agreement with EGSnrc results with a relative difference of 3.8%. A noise calibration process is conducted to calibrate gDRR against a real CBCT scanner. The calculated projections are accurate and realistic, such that beam-hardening artifacts and scatter artifacts can be reproduced using the simulated projections. The noise amplitudes in the CBCT images reconstructed from the simulated projections also agree with those in the measured images at corresponding mAs levels.A GPU computational tool, gDRR, has been developed for the accurate and efficient simulations of x-ray projections of CBCT with realistic configurations.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

SMART (SiMulAtion and ReconsTruction) PET: an efficient PET simulation-reconstruction tool.

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publications

SMART (SiMulAtion and ReconsTruction) PET: an efficient PET simulation-reconstruction tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets