Cargando…

Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?

PURPOSE: This study aims to provide a detailed investigation on the noise penalization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL)‐based algorithm, with the utilization of partial volume effect correction (PVC), so as to offer the suitable beta value and optimum standardized uptake value (SUV) par...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Zhifang, Guo, Binwei, Huang, Bin, Zhao, Bin, Qin, Zhixing, Hao, Xinzhong, Liang, Meng, Xie, Jun, Li, Sijin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33683004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13129
_version_ 1783668073260122112
author Wu, Zhifang
Guo, Binwei
Huang, Bin
Zhao, Bin
Qin, Zhixing
Hao, Xinzhong
Liang, Meng
Xie, Jun
Li, Sijin
author_facet Wu, Zhifang
Guo, Binwei
Huang, Bin
Zhao, Bin
Qin, Zhixing
Hao, Xinzhong
Liang, Meng
Xie, Jun
Li, Sijin
author_sort Wu, Zhifang
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study aims to provide a detailed investigation on the noise penalization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL)‐based algorithm, with the utilization of partial volume effect correction (PVC), so as to offer the suitable beta value and optimum standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters in clinical practice for small pulmonary nodules. METHODS: A National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) image‐quality phantom was scanned and images were reconstructed using BPL with beta values ranged from 100 to 1000. The recovery coefficient (RC), contrast recovery (CR), and background variability (BV) were measured to assess the quantification accuracy and image quality. In the clinical assessment, lesions were categorized into sub‐centimeter (<10 mm, n = 7) group and medium size (10–30 mm, n = 16) group. Signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) were measured to evaluate the image quality and lesion detectability. With PVC was performed, the impact of beta values on SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak) of small pulmonary nodules was evaluated. Subjective image analysis was performed by two experienced readers. RESULTS: With the increasing of beta values, RC, CR, and BV decreased gradually in the phantom work. In the clinical study, SNR and CNR of both groups increased with the beta values (P < 0.001), although the sub‐centimeter group showed increases after the beta value reached over 700. In addition, highly significant negative correlations were observed between SUVs and beta values for both lesion‐size groups before the PVC (P < 0.001 for all). After the PVC, SUVpeak measured from the sub‐centimeter group was no significantly different among different beta values (P = 0.830). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests using SUVpeak as the quantification parameter with PVC performed to mitigate the effects of beta regularization. Beta values between 300 and 400 were preferred for pulmonary nodules smaller than 30 mm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7984479
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79844792021-03-25 Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography? Wu, Zhifang Guo, Binwei Huang, Bin Zhao, Bin Qin, Zhixing Hao, Xinzhong Liang, Meng Xie, Jun Li, Sijin J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: This study aims to provide a detailed investigation on the noise penalization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL)‐based algorithm, with the utilization of partial volume effect correction (PVC), so as to offer the suitable beta value and optimum standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters in clinical practice for small pulmonary nodules. METHODS: A National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) image‐quality phantom was scanned and images were reconstructed using BPL with beta values ranged from 100 to 1000. The recovery coefficient (RC), contrast recovery (CR), and background variability (BV) were measured to assess the quantification accuracy and image quality. In the clinical assessment, lesions were categorized into sub‐centimeter (<10 mm, n = 7) group and medium size (10–30 mm, n = 16) group. Signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) were measured to evaluate the image quality and lesion detectability. With PVC was performed, the impact of beta values on SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak) of small pulmonary nodules was evaluated. Subjective image analysis was performed by two experienced readers. RESULTS: With the increasing of beta values, RC, CR, and BV decreased gradually in the phantom work. In the clinical study, SNR and CNR of both groups increased with the beta values (P < 0.001), although the sub‐centimeter group showed increases after the beta value reached over 700. In addition, highly significant negative correlations were observed between SUVs and beta values for both lesion‐size groups before the PVC (P < 0.001 for all). After the PVC, SUVpeak measured from the sub‐centimeter group was no significantly different among different beta values (P = 0.830). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests using SUVpeak as the quantification parameter with PVC performed to mitigate the effects of beta regularization. Beta values between 300 and 400 were preferred for pulmonary nodules smaller than 30 mm. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7984479/ /pubmed/33683004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13129 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Wu, Zhifang
Guo, Binwei
Huang, Bin
Zhao, Bin
Qin, Zhixing
Hao, Xinzhong
Liang, Meng
Xie, Jun
Li, Sijin
Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title_full Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title_fullStr Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title_full_unstemmed Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title_short Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
title_sort does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33683004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13129
work_keys_str_mv AT wuzhifang doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT guobinwei doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT huangbin doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT zhaobin doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT qinzhixing doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT haoxinzhong doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT liangmeng doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT xiejun doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography
AT lisijin doesthebetaregularizationparameterofbayesianpenalizedlikelihoodreconstructionalwaysaffectthequantificationaccuracyandimagequalityofpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomography