Cargando…

Artificial Intelligence–Driven Single-Shot PET Image Artifact Detection and Disentanglement: Toward Routine Clinical Image Quality Assurance

PURPOSE: Medical imaging artifacts compromise image quality and quantitative analysis and might confound interpretation and misguide clinical decision-making. The present work envisions and demonstrates a new paradigm PET image Quality Assurance NETwork (PET-QA-NET) in which various image artifacts...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shiri, Isaac, Salimi, Yazdan, Hervier, Elsa, Pezzoni, Agathe, Sanaat, Amirhossein, Mostafaei, Shayan, Rahmim, Arman, Mainta, Ismini, Zaidi, Habib
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10662584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37883015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004912
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Medical imaging artifacts compromise image quality and quantitative analysis and might confound interpretation and misguide clinical decision-making. The present work envisions and demonstrates a new paradigm PET image Quality Assurance NETwork (PET-QA-NET) in which various image artifacts are detected and disentangled from images without prior knowledge of a standard of reference or ground truth for routine PET image quality assurance. METHODS: The network was trained and evaluated using training/validation/testing data sets consisting of 669/100/100 artifact-free oncological (18)F-FDG PET/CT images and subsequently fine-tuned and evaluated on 384 (20% for fine-tuning) scans from 8 different PET centers. The developed DL model was quantitatively assessed using various image quality metrics calculated for 22 volumes of interest defined on each scan. In addition, 200 additional (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans (this time with artifacts), generated using both CT-based attenuation and scatter correction (routine PET) and PET-QA-NET, were blindly evaluated by 2 nuclear medicine physicians for the presence of artifacts, diagnostic confidence, image quality, and the number of lesions detected in different body regions. RESULTS: Across the volumes of interest of 100 patients, SUV MAE values of 0.13 ± 0.04, 0.24 ± 0.1, and 0.21 ± 0.06 were reached for SUV(mean), SUV(max), and SUV(peak), respectively (no statistically significant difference). Qualitative assessment showed a general trend of improved image quality and diagnostic confidence and reduced image artifacts for PET-QA-NET compared with routine CT-based attenuation and scatter correction. CONCLUSION: We developed a highly effective and reliable quality assurance tool that can be embedded routinely to detect and correct for (18)F-FDG PET image artifacts in clinical setting with notably improved PET image quality and quantitative capabilities.