How Do the More Recent Reconstruction Algorithms Affect the Interpretation Criteria of PET/CT Images?

被引:23
作者
Matti, Antonella [1 ]
Lima, Giacomo Maria [1 ]
Pettinato, Cinzia [2 ]
Pietrobon, Francesca [3 ]
Martinelli, Felice [4 ]
Fanti, Stefano [1 ]
机构
[1] St Orsola Marcello Malpighi Hosp, Nucl Med Dept, Via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy
[2] St Orsola Marcello Malpighi Hosp, Hlth Phys Dept, Via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy
[3] San Martino Hosp, Hlth Phys Dept, Viale Europa 22, Belluno, Italy
[4] San Martino Hosp, Nucl Med Dept, Viale Europa 22, Belluno, Italy
关键词
Q; Clear; OSEM; 18FDG-PET; Reconstruction algorithm; BPL reconstruction algorithm; PET; CT; PENALIZED LIKELIHOOD RECONSTRUCTION; CLINICAL-EVALUATION; INSTRUMENTATION;
D O I
10.1007/s13139-019-00594-x
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeRecently, a new Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (BPL) Reconstruction Algorithm was introduced by GE Healthcare, Q.Clear; it promises to provide better PET image resolution compared to the widely used Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OSEM). The aim of this study is to compare the performance of these two algorithms on several types of findings, in terms of image quality, lesion detectability, sensitivity, and specificity.MethodsBetween September 6th 2017 and July 31st 2018, 663 whole body 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed at the Nuclear Medicine Department of S. Martino Hospital (Belluno, Italy). Based on the availability of clinical/radiological follow-up data, 240 scans were retrospectively reviewed. For each scan, a hypermetabolic finding was selected, reporting both for OSEM and Q.Clear: SUVmax and SUVmean values of the finding, the liver and the background close to the finding; size of the finding; percentage variations of SUVmax and SUVmean. Each finding was subsequently correlated with clinical and radiological follow-up, to define its benign/malignant nature.ResultsOverall, Q.Clear improved the SUV values in each scan, especially in small findings (<10mm), high SUVmax values (10), and medium/low backgrounds. Furthermore, Q.Clear amplifies the signal of hypermetabolic findings without modifying the background signal, which leads to an increase in signal-to-noise ratio, improving overall image quality. Finally, Q.Clear did not affect PET sensitivity or specificity, in terms of number of reported findings and characterization of their nature.ConclusionsQ.Clear is an iterative algorithm that improves significantly the quality of PET images compared to OSEM, increasing the SUVmax of findings (in particular for small findings) and the signal-to-noise ratio. However, due to the intrinsic characteristics of this algorithm, it will be necessary to adapt and/or modify the current interpretative criteria based of quantitative evaluation, to avoid an overestimation of the disease burden.
引用
收藏
页码:216 / 222
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET
    Ahn, Sangtae
    Ross, Steven G.
    Asma, Evren
    Miao, Jun
    Jin, Xiao
    Cheng, Lishui
    Wollenweber, Scott D.
    Manjeshwar, Ravindra M.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2015, 60 (15) : 5733 - 5751
  • [2] [Anonymous], FONDAMENTI MED NUCL
  • [3] FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas
    Barrington, Sally F.
    Kluge, Regine
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2017, 44 : S97 - S110
  • [4] Innovations in Instrumentation for Positron Emission Tomography
    Berg, Eric
    Cherry, Simon R.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2018, 48 (04) : 311 - 331
  • [5] Recommendations for Initial Evaluation, Staging, and Response Assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Lugano Classification
    Cheson, Bruce D.
    Fisher, Richard I.
    Barrington, Sally F.
    Cavalli, Franco
    Schwartz, Lawrence H.
    Zucca, Emanuele
    Lister, T. Andrew
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (27) : 3059 - +
  • [6] Effect of a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood PET Reconstruction Compared With Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization on Clinical Image Quality Over a Wide Range of Patient Weights
    Chilcott, Anna K.
    Bradley, Kevin M.
    McGowan, Daniel R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (01) : 153 - 157
  • [7] GE Healthcare, PET CT MILL SPEC
  • [8] Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT
    Howard, Brandon A.
    Morgan, Rustain
    Thorpe, Matthew P.
    Turkington, Timothy G.
    Oldan, Jorge
    James, Olga G.
    Borges-Neto, Salvador
    [J]. ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2017, 31 (08) : 623 - 628
  • [9] System models for PET statistical iterative reconstruction: A review
    Iriarte, A.
    Marabini, R.
    Matej, S.
    Sorzano, C. O. S.
    Lewitt, R. M.
    [J]. COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL IMAGING AND GRAPHICS, 2016, 48 : 30 - 48
  • [10] Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification
    O' Doherty, Jim
    McGowan, Daniel R.
    Abreu, Carla
    Barrington, Sally
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 24 (01) : 282 - 290