Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Comparison of maximum likelihood and conventional PET scatter scaling methods for 18 F-FDG and 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT.

Tytuł:
Comparison of maximum likelihood and conventional PET scatter scaling methods for Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT.
Autorzy:
Bal H; Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Kiser JW; Department of Radiology, Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA, USA.
Conti M; Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Bowen SL; Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, USA.
Źródło:
Medical physics [Med Phys] 2021 Aug; Vol. 48 (8), pp. 4218-4228. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jun 28.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2017- : Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Original Publication: Lancaster, Pa., Published for the American Assn. of Physicists in Medicine by the American Institute of Physics.
MeSH Terms:
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18*
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography*
Algorithms ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Positron-Emission Tomography ; Radiopharmaceuticals ; Retrospective Studies
References:
Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(4):535-541.
Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2083-2095.
Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallières M, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:38-44.
Sharma R, Wang WM, Yusuf S, et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT parameters predict response to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in neuroendocrine tumours. Radiother Oncol. 2019;141:108-115.
Watson CC, Casey ME, Bendriem B, et al. Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1825-1834.
Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587-1594.
Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:166-179.
Panin VY. Scatter estimation scaling with all count use by employing discrete Data Consistency Conditions. In: 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2012:2998-3004.
Lindemann ME, Guberina N, Wetter A, Fendler WP, Jakoby B, Quick HH. Improving 68Ga-PSMA PET/MRI of the prostate with unrenormalized absolute scatter correction. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1642-1648.
Watson CC, Hu J, Zhou C. Extension of the SSS PET scatter correction algorithm to include double scatter. In: 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC). 2018:1-4.
Defrise M, Salvo K, Rezaei A, Nuyts J, Panin V, Casey M. ML estimation of the scatter scaling in TOF PET. In: 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2014:1-5.
Rezaei A, Salvo K, Vahle T, et al. Plane-dependent ML scatter scaling: 3D extension of the 2D simulated single scatter (SSS) estimate. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:6515-6531.
Bal H, Panin V, Rezaei A, Aykac M, Conti M. ML Background scale factors estimation for prompt gamma tracers in PET-CT imaging. In: 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2018:1-4.
Bal H, Panin VY, Conti M. Assessment of quantification accuracy with ML scatter scaling for variable count statistics. In: 2019 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2019:1-4.
Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3:8.
Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:845-855.
Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273:859-869.
Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375-2389.
Abdoli M, Dierckx RAJO, Zaidi H. Metal artifact reduction strategies for improved attenuation correction in hybrid PET/CT imaging. Med Phys. 2012;39:3343-3360.
Iatrou M, Manjeshwar RM, Wollenweber SD, Ross SG, Stearns CW. Out-of-field scatter estimation in 3D whole body PET. In: 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2009:3886-3888.
Bowen SL, Fuin N, Levine MA, Catana C. Transmission imaging for integrated PET-MR systems. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:5547-5568.
El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:347-353.
Grant Information:
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: PET/CT; image quantification; iterative reconstruction; joint estimation; scatter correction
Substance Nomenclature:
0 (Radiopharmaceuticals)
0Z5B2CJX4D (Fluorodeoxyglucose F18)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20210520 Date Completed: 20210818 Latest Revision: 20210818
Update Code:
20240104
DOI:
10.1002/mp.14988
PMID:
34013586
Czasopismo naukowe
Purpose: We aim to quantify differences between a new maximum likelihood (ML) background scaling (MLBS) algorithm and two conventional scatter scaling methods for clinical PET/CT. A common source of reduced image quantification with conventional scatter corrections is attributed to erroneous scaling of the initial scatter estimate to match acquired scattered events in the sinogram. MLBS may have performance advantages over conventional methods by using all available data intersecting the subject.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on subjects injected with 18 F-FDG (N = 71) and 68 Ga-DOTATATE (N = 11) and imaged using time-of-flight (TOF) PET/CT. The scatter distribution was estimated with single scatter simulation approaches. Conventional scaling algorithms included (a) tail fitted background scaling (TFBS), which scales the scatter to "tails" outside the emission support, and (b) absolute scatter correction (ABS), which utilizes the simulated scatter distribution with no scaling applied. MLBS consisted of an alternating iterative reconstruction with a TOF-based ML activity image update allowing negative values (NEG-ML) and nested loop ML scatter scaling estimation. Scatter corrections were compared using reconstructed images as follows: (a) normalized relative difference images were generated and used for voxel-wise analysis, (b) liver and suspected lesion ROIs were drawn to compute mean SUVs, and (c) a qualitative analysis of overall diagnostic image quality, impact of artifacts, and lesion conspicuity was performed. Absolute quantification and normalized relative differences were also assessed with an 18 F-FDG phantom study.
Results: For human subjects 18 F-FDG data, Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the largest normalized voxel-wise differences were observed close to the lower limit (SUV = 1.0). MLBS reconstructions trended towards higher scatter fractions compared to TFBS and ABS images, with median voxel differences across all subjects for TFBS-MLBS measured at 1.7% and 7.6% for 18 F-FDG and 68 Ga-DOTATATE, respectively. For mean SUV analysis, there was a high degree of correlation between the scatter corrections. For 18 F-FDG, ABS scatter correction reconstructions trended towards higher liver mean SUVs relative to MLBS. The qualitative image analysis revealed no significant differences between TFBS and MLBS image reconstructions. For a uniformly filled relatively large 37 cm diameter phantom, MLBS produced the lowest bias in absolute quantification, while normalized voxel-wise differences showed a trend in scatter correction performance consistent with the human subjects study.
Conclusions: For 18 F-FDG, MLBS is at least a valid substitute to TFBS, providing reconstructed image performance comparable to TFBS in most subjects but exhibiting quantitative differences in cases where TFBS is typically prone to inaccuracies (e.g., due to patient motion and CT-based attenuation map truncation). Particularly for low contrast regions, quantification differs for ABS compared to MLBS and TFBS, and caution should be taken when utilizing ABS for decision-making based on quantitative metrics.
(© 2021 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies