Determination of accuracy and precision of lesion uptake measurements in human subjects with time-of-flight pet

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 602-607

  Daube Witherspoon, Margaret E ^a   Surti, Suleman ^a   Perkins, Amy E ^b   Karp, Joel S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Nstrumentation; PET; Positron emission tomography; Research methods; Time of flight PET

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TIME OF FLIGHT POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

INSTRUMENTATION; PET; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RESEARCH METHODS; TIME-OF-FLIGHT PET;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIVER; LUNG; MALE; MICROSPHERES; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WHOLE-BODY COUNTING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84901360088     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.127035     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allemand R, Gresset C, Vacher J. Potential advantages of a cesium fluoride scintillator for a time-of-flight positron camera. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:153-155.
2. Mullani NA, Markham J, Ter-Pogossian MM. Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:1095-1097.
3. Yamamoto M, Ficke DC, Ter-Pogossian MM. Experimental assessment of the gain achieved by the utilization of time-of-flight information in a positron emission tomograph. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;1:187-192.
4. Snyder DL, Thomas LJ, Ter-Pogossian MM. A mathematical model for positronemission tomography systems having time-of-flight measurements. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;28:3575-3583.
5. Tomitani T. Image reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time-of-flight assisted positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;28:4582-4589.
6. Budinger TF. Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:73-78.
7. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-offlight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471-480.
8. Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375-2389.
9. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38: 5394-5411.
10. Surti S, Karp JS, Popescu LM, Daube-Witherspoon ME,Werner M. Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25: 529-538.
11. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-offlight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462-470.
12. Surti S, Karp JS. Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:373-384.
13. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1315-1323.
14. 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;51:237-245.
15. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Surti S, Perkins A, et al. The imaging performance of a LaBr3-based PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:45-64.
16. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52: 347-353.
17. 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;52:712-719.
18. Surti S, Karp JS. Application of a generalized scan statistic model to evaluate TOF PET images. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58:99-104.
19. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1147-1157.
20. Kadrmas DJ, Oktay MB, Casey ME, Hamill JJ. Effect of scan time on oncologic lesion detection in whole-body PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2012;59:1940-1947.
21. Schaefferkoetter J, Casey M, Townsend D, El Fakhri G. Clinical impact of timeof-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:1465-1478.
22. Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, et al. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:103-109.
23. Karp JS, Kuhn A, Perkins AE, et al. Characterization of a time-of-flight PET scanner based on lanthanum bromide. In: Yu B, ed. Conference Record of the 2005 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2005:1919-1923.
24. Turkington TG, Wilson JM. Attenuation artifacts and time-of-flight PET. In: Yu B, ed. Conference Record of the 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2009:2997-2999.
25. Conti M. Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:155-168.
26. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601-609.
27. Reader AJ, Manavaki R, Zhao S, Julyan PJ, Hastings DL, Zweit J. Accelerated list-mode EM algorithm. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:42-49.
28. Popescu LM, Matej S, Lewitt RM. Iterative image reconstruction using geometrically ordered subsets with list-mode data. In: Siebert JA, ed. Conference Record of the 2004 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2004:3536-3540.
29. Lewitt RM. Multidimensional digital image representations using generalized Kaiser-Bessel window functions. J Opt Soc Am A. 1990;7:1834-1846.
30. Matej S, Lewitt RM. Practical considerations for 3-D image reconstruction using spherically symmetric volume elements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996;15:68-78.
31. Smith RJ, Karp JS, Muehllehner G, Gualtieri E, Bernard F. Singles transmission scans performed post-injection for quantitative whole-body PET imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1997;44:1329-1335.
32. Werner ME, Surti S, Karp JS. Implementation and evaluation of a 3-D PET single scatter simulation with TOF modeling. In: Phlips B, ed. Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2006:1768-1773.
33. Watson CC. Extension of single scatter simulation to scatter correction of timeof-flight PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54:1679-1686.
34. Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography, 7: a technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986;10:845-850.
35. Bazanez-Borgert M, Bundschuh RA, Herz M, Martinez M-J, Schwaiger M, Ziegler SI. Radioactive spheres without inactive wall for lesion simulation in PET. Z Med Phys. 2008;18:37-42.
36. Haynor DR, Woods SD. Resampling estimates of precision in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1989;8:337-343.
37. Dahlbom M. Estimation of image noise in PET using the bootstrap method. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:2062-2066.
38. Buvat I. A non-parametric bootstrap approach for analyzing the statistical properties of SPECT and PET images. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:1761-1775.
39. Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey M, et al. First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:4507-4526.
40. Conti M, Eriksson L, Westerwoudt V. Estimating image quality for future generations of TOF PET scanners. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60:87-94.