Cargando…
The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction
BACKGROUND: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) reconstruction algorithms can have substantial influence on quantitative image data used, e.g., for therapy planning or monitoring in oncology. We analyzed radial activity concentration profiles of differently reconstructed FD...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26501454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2197-7364-1-12 |
_version_ | 1783475712424935424 |
---|---|
author | Rogasch, Julian MM Hofheinz, Frank Lougovski, Alexandr Furth, Christian Ruf, Juri Großer, Oliver S Mohnike, Konrad Hass, Peter Walke, Mathias Amthauer, Holger Steffen, Ingo G |
author_facet | Rogasch, Julian MM Hofheinz, Frank Lougovski, Alexandr Furth, Christian Ruf, Juri Großer, Oliver S Mohnike, Konrad Hass, Peter Walke, Mathias Amthauer, Holger Steffen, Ingo G |
author_sort | Rogasch, Julian MM |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) reconstruction algorithms can have substantial influence on quantitative image data used, e.g., for therapy planning or monitoring in oncology. We analyzed radial activity concentration profiles of differently reconstructed FDG-PET images to determine the influence of varying signal-to-background ratios (SBRs) on the respective spatial resolution, activity concentration distribution, and quantification (standardized uptake value [SUV], metabolic tumor volume [MTV]). METHODS: Measurements were performed on a Siemens Biograph mCT 64 using a cylindrical phantom containing four spheres (diameter, 30 to 70 mm) filled with F18-FDG applying three SBRs (SBR1, 16:1; SBR2, 6:1; SBR3, 2:1). Images were reconstructed employing six algorithms (filtered backprojection [FBP], FBP + time-of-flight analysis [FBP + TOF], 3D-ordered subset expectation maximization [3D-OSEM], 3D-OSEM + TOF, point spread function [PSF], PSF + TOF). Spatial resolution was determined by fitting the convolution of the object geometry with a Gaussian point spread function to radial activity concentration profiles. MTV delineation was performed using fixed thresholds and semiautomatic background-adapted thresholding (ROVER, ABX, Radeberg, Germany). RESULTS: The pairwise Wilcoxon test revealed significantly higher spatial resolutions for PSF + TOF (up to 4.0 mm) compared to PSF, FBP, FBP + TOF, 3D-OSEM, and 3D-OSEM + TOF at all SBRs (each P < 0.05) with the highest differences for SBR1 decreasing to the lowest for SBR3. Edge elevations in radial activity profiles (Gibbs artifacts) were highest for PSF and PSF + TOF declining with decreasing SBR (PSF + TOF largest sphere; SBR1, 6.3%; SBR3, 2.7%). These artifacts induce substantial SUVmax overestimation compared to the reference SUV for PSF algorithms at SBR1 and SBR2 leading to substantial MTV underestimation in threshold-based segmentation. In contrast, both PSF algorithms provided the lowest deviation of SUVmean from reference SUV at SBR1 and SBR2. CONCLUSIONS: At high contrast, the PSF algorithms provided the highest spatial resolution and lowest SUVmean deviation from the reference SUV. In contrast, both algorithms showed the highest deviations in SUVmax and threshold-based MTV definition. At low contrast, all investigated reconstruction algorithms performed approximately equally. The use of PSF algorithms for quantitative PET data, e.g., for target volume definition or in serial PET studies, should be performed with caution - especially if comparing SUV of lesions with high and low contrasts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2197-7364-1-12) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6890905 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68909052019-12-17 The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction Rogasch, Julian MM Hofheinz, Frank Lougovski, Alexandr Furth, Christian Ruf, Juri Großer, Oliver S Mohnike, Konrad Hass, Peter Walke, Mathias Amthauer, Holger Steffen, Ingo G EJNMMI Phys Original Research BACKGROUND: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) reconstruction algorithms can have substantial influence on quantitative image data used, e.g., for therapy planning or monitoring in oncology. We analyzed radial activity concentration profiles of differently reconstructed FDG-PET images to determine the influence of varying signal-to-background ratios (SBRs) on the respective spatial resolution, activity concentration distribution, and quantification (standardized uptake value [SUV], metabolic tumor volume [MTV]). METHODS: Measurements were performed on a Siemens Biograph mCT 64 using a cylindrical phantom containing four spheres (diameter, 30 to 70 mm) filled with F18-FDG applying three SBRs (SBR1, 16:1; SBR2, 6:1; SBR3, 2:1). Images were reconstructed employing six algorithms (filtered backprojection [FBP], FBP + time-of-flight analysis [FBP + TOF], 3D-ordered subset expectation maximization [3D-OSEM], 3D-OSEM + TOF, point spread function [PSF], PSF + TOF). Spatial resolution was determined by fitting the convolution of the object geometry with a Gaussian point spread function to radial activity concentration profiles. MTV delineation was performed using fixed thresholds and semiautomatic background-adapted thresholding (ROVER, ABX, Radeberg, Germany). RESULTS: The pairwise Wilcoxon test revealed significantly higher spatial resolutions for PSF + TOF (up to 4.0 mm) compared to PSF, FBP, FBP + TOF, 3D-OSEM, and 3D-OSEM + TOF at all SBRs (each P < 0.05) with the highest differences for SBR1 decreasing to the lowest for SBR3. Edge elevations in radial activity profiles (Gibbs artifacts) were highest for PSF and PSF + TOF declining with decreasing SBR (PSF + TOF largest sphere; SBR1, 6.3%; SBR3, 2.7%). These artifacts induce substantial SUVmax overestimation compared to the reference SUV for PSF algorithms at SBR1 and SBR2 leading to substantial MTV underestimation in threshold-based segmentation. In contrast, both PSF algorithms provided the lowest deviation of SUVmean from reference SUV at SBR1 and SBR2. CONCLUSIONS: At high contrast, the PSF algorithms provided the highest spatial resolution and lowest SUVmean deviation from the reference SUV. In contrast, both algorithms showed the highest deviations in SUVmax and threshold-based MTV definition. At low contrast, all investigated reconstruction algorithms performed approximately equally. The use of PSF algorithms for quantitative PET data, e.g., for target volume definition or in serial PET studies, should be performed with caution - especially if comparing SUV of lesions with high and low contrasts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2197-7364-1-12) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2014-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6890905/ /pubmed/26501454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2197-7364-1-12 Text en © Rogasch et al.; licensee Springer. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Rogasch, Julian MM Hofheinz, Frank Lougovski, Alexandr Furth, Christian Ruf, Juri Großer, Oliver S Mohnike, Konrad Hass, Peter Walke, Mathias Amthauer, Holger Steffen, Ingo G The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title | The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title_full | The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title_fullStr | The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title_full_unstemmed | The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title_short | The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
title_sort | influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and f18-fdg-pet quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26501454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2197-7364-1-12 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rogaschjulianmm theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT hofheinzfrank theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT lougovskialexandr theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT furthchristian theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT rufjuri theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT großerolivers theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT mohnikekonrad theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT hasspeter theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT walkemathias theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT amthauerholger theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT steffeningog theinfluenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT rogaschjulianmm influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT hofheinzfrank influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT lougovskialexandr influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT furthchristian influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT rufjuri influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT großerolivers influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT mohnikekonrad influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT hasspeter influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT walkemathias influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT amthauerholger influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction AT steffeningog influenceofdifferentsignaltobackgroundratiosonspatialresolutionandf18fdgpetquantificationusingpointspreadfunctionandtimeofflightreconstruction |