Volume 25, Issue 4 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2022)                   Iran South Med J 2022, 25(4): 355-370 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ghafarian P, Rezaei S, Gharepapagh E, Sarkar S, Ay M R. Impact of Various Image Reconstruction Methods on Joint Compensation of Respiratory Motion and Partial Volume Effects in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging: Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Iran South Med J 2022; 25 (4) :355-370
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1642-en.html
1- Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Medical Radiation Sciences Research Team, Medical School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Department of Nuclear medicine, Medical School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran , s.rezaei.tums@gmail.com
3- Medical Radiation Sciences Research Team, Medical School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Department of Nuclear medicine, Medical School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging (RCMCI), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (242 Views)
Background: The present study aims to assess the impact of various image reconstruction methods in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging on the quantification performance of the proposed technique for joint compensation of respiratory motion and partial volume effects (PVEs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Materials and Methods: An image-based deconvolution technique was proposed, incorporating wavelet-based denoising within the Lucy-Richardson algorithm to jointly compensate for PVEs and respiratory motion. The method was evaluated using data from 15 patients with 60 non-small cell lung cancer. In these patients, the lesions were classified by size, location and Signal-to-Background Ratios (SBR). In each study, PET images were reconstructed using four different methods: OSEM with time- of-flight (TOF) information, OSEM with point spread function modelling (PSF), OSEM with both TOF and PSF (TOFPSF), and OSEM without PSF or TOF (OSEM). The Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR), Coefficient of Variation (COV) and Standardized Uptake Values (SUV) were measured within the lesions and compared to images that were not processed using the joint-compensation technique. Furthermore, variabilities arising due to the choice of the reconstruction methods were assessed.
Results: Processing the images using the proposed technique yielded significantly higher CNR and SUV, particularly in small spheres, for all the reconstruction methods and all the SBRs (P<0.05). Overall, the incorporation of wavelet-based denoising within the Lucy Richardson algorithm improved COV and CNR in all the cases (P<0.05.( In the patient data, the median values of the relative difference (%) of CNR for the compensated images in comparison to the uncompensated images were 40.9%, 41.2%, 45.3% and 40.8% for OSEM, PSF, TOF, and TOFPSF, respectively, in the small lesions (equivalent diameter <15 mm), 31.0%, 25.9%, 34.1% and 28.2% in the average-sized lesions (equivalent diameter<30 mm), 35.7%, 33.7%, 37.8% and 33.2% in the lesions in the lower lung lobes, 33.5%, 31.0%, 35.7% and 30.6% in the lesions in the upper lung lobes, 39.7%, 37.9%, 45.1% and 39.0% in the low-SBR lesions and 28.8%, 27.8%, 34.8% and 25.7% in the high-SBR lesions. Changes in motion amplitude, target size and SBRs in the patient data resulted in significant inter-method differences in the images reconstructed using different methods. Specifically, in a small target size, quantitative accuracy was highly dependent on the choice of the reconstruction method.
Conclusion: Our results showed that joint compensation, and incorporation of wavelet-based denoising, yielded improved quantification from PET images. Quantitative accuracy is greatly affected by SBR, lesion size, breathing motion amplitude, as well as the choice of the reconstruction protocols. Overall, the choice of reconstruction algorithm combined with compensation method needs to be determined carefully.
Full-Text [PDF 642 kb]   (64 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Radiology. Diagnostic Imaging
Received: 2022/08/14 | Accepted: 2022/10/23 | Published: 2022/12/17

References
1. El Naqa I. The role of quantitative PET in predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Clin Transl Imaging 2014; 2: 305–20. [DOI]
2. O JH, Jacene H, Luber B, et al. Quantitation of cancer treatment response by 18F-FDG PET/CT: multicenter assessment of measurement variability. J Nucl Med 2017; 58(9): 1429–34. [DOI]
3. Hughes NM, Mou T, O’Regan KN, et al. Tumor heterogeneity measurement using [18F] FDG PET/CT shows prognostic value in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging 2018; 2: 25. [DOI]
4. Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius PH, et al. A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57(21): R119–59. [DOI]
5. Polycarpou I, Tsoumpas C, King AP, et al. Impact of respiratory motion correction and spatial resolution on lesion detection in PET: a simulation study based on real MR dynamic data. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59(3): 697–713. [DOI]
6. Bal H, Guerin L, Casey ME, et al. Improving PET spatial resolution and detectability for prostate cancer imaging. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59(15): 4411–26. [DOI]
7. Kawano T, Ohtake E, Inoue T. Deep-inspiration breath-hold PET/CT of lung cancer: maximum standardized uptake value analysis of 108 patients. J Nucl Med 2008; 49(8): 1223–1231. [DOI]
8. Mageras GS, Pevsner A, Yorke ED, et al. Measurement of lung tumor motion using respiration-correlated CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60(3): 933–41. [DOI]
9. Salavati A, Borofsky S, Boon-Keng TK, et al. Application of partial volume effect correction and 4D PET in the quantification of FDG avid lung lesions. Mol Imaging Biol 2015; 17(1): 140–148. [DOI]
10. Apostolova I, Wiemker R, Paulus T, et al. Combined correction of recovery effect and motion blur for SUV quantification of solitary pulmonary nodules in FDG PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(8): 1868–1877. [DOI]
11. Wiemker R, Paulus T, Kabus S, et al. Combined motion blur and partial volume correction for computer aided diagnosis of pulmonary nodules in PET/CT. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2008; 3(1): 105–113. [DOI]
12. Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, et al. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82(5): 862–869. [DOI]
13. Vennart NJ, Bird N, Buscombe J, et al. Optimization of PET/CT image quality using the GE “Sharp IR” point-spread function reconstruction algorithm. Nucl Med Commun 2017; 38(6): 471–479. [DOI]
14. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: The benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38(6): 1147–1157. [DOI]
15. Rezaei S, Ghafarian P, Bakhshayesh-Karam M, et al. The impact of iterative reconstruction protocol, signal-to-background ratio and background activity on measurement of PET spatial resolution. Jpn J Radiol 2020; 38(3): 231-9. [DOI]
16. Taniguchi T, Akamatsu G, Kasahara Y, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality in overweight patients with PSF and TOF. Ann Nucl Med 2015; 29(1): 71–77. [DOI]
17. Chang G, Chang T, Pan T, et al. Joint correction of respiratory motion artifact and partial volume effect in lung/thoracic PET/CT imaging. Med Phys 2010; 37(12): 6221–6232. [DOI]
18. Kadoya N, Fujita Y, Ito K, et al. Investigation of correction method of recovery effect and motion blur for SUV quantification in FDG PET/CT in patients with early lung cancer. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 2013; 4: 1-8. [DOI]
19. Xu Q, Yuan K, Ye D. Respiratory motion blur identification and reduction in ungated thoracic PET imaging. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56(14): 4481–98. [DOI]
20. Boussion N, Cheze Le Rest C, Hatt M, et al. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36(7): 1064–75. [DOI]
21. Zhou D, Shen X. Image denoising using block thresholding. Congress on Image and Signal Processing.Washington, DC: IEEE, 2008, 335–8. [DOI]
22. Chang SG, Yu B, Vetterli M. Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression. IEEE Trans Image Process 2000; 9(9): 1532–46. [DOI]
23. Suljic A, Tomse P, Jensterle L, et al. The impact of reconstruction algorithms and time of flight information on PET/CT image quality. Radiol Oncol 2015; 49(3): 227–233. [DOI]
24. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, et al. Improvement in PET/CT Image Quality with a Combination of Point-Spread Function and Time-of-Flight in Relation to Reconstruction Parameters. J Nucl Med 2012; 53(11): 1716–1722. [DOI]
25. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results. J Nucl Med 2008; 49(3): 462–470. [DOI]
26. Surti S, Scheuermann J, El Fakhri G, et al. Impact of Time-of-Flight PET on Whole-Body Oncologic Studies: A Human Observer Lesion Detection and Localization Study. J Nucl Med 2011; 52(5): 712–719. [DOI]
27. Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, et al. An Assessment of the Impact of Incorporating Time-of-Flight Information into Clinical PET/CT Imaging. J Nucl Med 2010; 51(2): 237–45. [DOI]
28. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, et al. Improvement in Lesion Detection with Whole-Body Oncologic Time-of-Flight PET. J Nucl Med 2011; 52(3): 347–353. [DOI]
29. Bettinardi V, Castiglioni I, De Bernardi E, et al. PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clin Transl Imaging 2014; 2(3): 199–218. [DOI]
30. Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, et al. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38(2): 103–109. [DOI]
31. Armstrong IS, Kelly MD, Williams HA, et al. Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies. EJNMMI Phys 2014; 1(1): 99. [DOI]
32. Rogasch JM, Hofheinz F, Lougovski A, et al. The influence of different signal-tobackground ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction. EJNMMI Phys 2014; 1(1): 12. [DOI]
33. Siman W, Mawlawi OR, Mikell JK, et al. Effects of image noise, respiratory motion, and motion compensation on 3D activity quantification in count-limited PET images. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62(2): 448-464. [DOI]
34. Sharifpour R, Ghafarian P, Rahmim A, et al. Quantification and reduction of respiratory induced artifacts in positron emission tomography/computed tomography using the time-of-flight technique. Nucl Med Commun 2017; 38(11): 948–955. [DOI]
35. Conti M, Bendriem B. The new opportunities for high time resolution clinical TOF PET. Clin Transl Imaging 2019; 7(2): 139–147. [DOI]
36. Nehmeh SA. Respiratory motion correction strategies in thoracic PET-CT imaging. PET Clin 2013; 8(1): 29–36. [DOI]
37. Wang Y, Zhang C, Liu J, et al. Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 131(2): 357- 369. [DOI]
38. Rezaei S, Ghafarian P, Jha AK, et al. Joint compensation of motion and partial volume effects by iterative deconvolution incorporating wavelet-based denoising in oncologic PET/CT imaging. Phys Med 2019; 68: 52–60. [DOI]
39. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39(1): 27–38. [DOI]
40. Fayad H, Schmidt H, Küstner T, et al. 4D MR and attenuation map generation in PET/MR imaging using 4D PET derived deformation matrices: a feasibility study for lung cancer applications. J Nucl Med 2016; 58(5): 1–9. [DOI]
41. Bolkheir A, Ostovar A, Moradinasab M, Larijani B. Nuclear Radiation and Thyroid Cancer; A Systematic Review. Iran South Med J 2022; 25(3): 261-276. [Article]

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | ISMJ

Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb