Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 56, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1447-1452

  Teoh, Eugene J ^a,b   McGowan, Daniel R ^a,b   Macpherson, Ruth E ^a   Bradley, Kevin M ^a   Gleeson, Fergus V ^a,b  

^a CHURCHILL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian penalized likelihood; Image quality; Image reconstruction; NEMA; Optimization; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYESIAN LEARNING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LIVER METASTASIS; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; ORDERED SUBSET EXPECTATION MAXIMIZATION; PET-CT SCANNER; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DEVICES; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MACHINE LEARNING; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MACHINE LEARNING; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84941011146     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: 2159662X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Maffione AM, Grassetto G, Rampin L, et al. Molecular imaging of pulmonary nodules. AJR. 2014;202:W217-W223.
2. Kwee TC, Cheng G, Lam MG, Basu S, Alavi A. SUVmax of 2.5 should not be embraced as a magic threshold for separating benign from malignant lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1475-1477.
3. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR. 2010;195:310-320.
4. Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31:496-505.
5. GE Healthcare White Paper: Q.Clear. GE Healthcare website. http://www3.gehealthcare.com/~/media/documents/us-global/products/pet-ct/whitepaper/q%20clear/ge-healthcare-white-paper-qclear.pdf. 2014. Accessed August 12, 2015.
6. Geman S, McClure DE. Statistical methods for tomographic image reconstruction. Bull Int Stat Inst. 1987;52:5-21.
7. Nuyts J, Beque D, Dupont P, Mortelmans L. A concave prior penalizing relative differences for maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:56-60.
8. Asma E, Ahn S, Ross SG, Chen A, Manjeshwar RM. Accurate and consistent lesion quantitation with clinically acceptable penalized likelihood images [abstract]. 2012 IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf Rec (NSS/MIC). 2012:4062-4066.
9. Ahn S, Fessler JA. Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:613-626.
10. Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med. 2005; 46:424-428.
11. Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, Teoh EJ, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. June 29, 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
12. Sah B, Veit-Haibach P, Delso G, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithm in PET/CT studies [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(suppl 1):2097.
13. Passalaqua S, Kappadath S, Branch D, et al. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of regularized PET image reconstruction [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2014;55 (suppl 1):579.
14. Ma H, Asma E, Ahn S, et al. Clinical evaluation of penalized likelihood reconstruction in whole-body PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40: S109.
15. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Gleeson FV. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. May 20, 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
16. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Belcher E, et al. SUVmax assessment of mediastinal nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a novel penalised likelihood PET reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:S397.
17. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA NU-2-2012 Performance Measurement of Positron Emission Tomography. Rosslyn, VA: NEMA; 2013.
18. Kenny KE, McGowan DR. Effect of the GE SharpIR PET reconstruction on contrast convergence and measured SUV values in the NEMA image quality phantom and patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:S209-S210.
19. Stearns CW, McDaniel DL, Kohlmyer SG, Arul PR, Geiser BP, Shanmugam V. Random coincidence estimation from single event rates on the discovery ST PET/CT scanner [abstract]. 2003 IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2003;5: 3067-3069.
20. Wollenweber SD. Parameterization of a model-based 3-D PET scatter correction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:722-727.
21. Iatrou M, Manjeshwar R, Ross SG, Thielemans K, Stearns CW. 3D implementation of scatter estimation in 3D PET [abstract]. 2006 IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2006;4:2142-2145.
22. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
23. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40:064301.