Influence of reconstruction parameters of positron emission tomograph scanning on the effect of partial volume of the pathological lesion
https://doi.org/10.29235/1561-8358-2021-66-3-356-364
Abstract
In this work, the following tasks were solved: to perform a comparative analysis of data processing methods when calculating recovery factors; to evaluate the influence of time-of-flight technology and PSF function on the recovery factor and the forecast of recovery factor deviation for potential pathological foci with a diameter of 6–8 mm; to evaluate the influence of parameters of iterative reconstruction algorithms, Gaussian filter and axial filters on the recovery factor. The calculation of the recovery factors was carried out on the basis of quantitative characteristics obtained in the analysis of reconstructions of images of the IEC phantom with six spheres installed inside and filled with a radiopharmaceutical. Eight series of experiments with background / sphere activity ratios 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8, 1/12, 1/14, 1/16, 1/20 were carried out with the same concentration of activity in the spheres during each separate experiment. The forecast of the effect of the partial volume effect on lesions with a diameter of 6 to 8 mm was carried out, taking into account the used reconstruction algorithms. It is advisable to use the results obtained to harmonize diagnostic protocols for scanning with positron emission tomographs using the input parameters of reconstruction algorithms and filters, which will minimize the error in the quantitative assessment of a radiopharmaceutical when analyzing the dynamics of the development of a pathological process, as well as the response of pathology to therapy.
About the Authors
E. V. Emelyanenko
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Center
Belarus
Belarus
I. G. Tarutin
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Center
Belarus
Belarus
P. A. Belobokov
N. N. Aleksandrov National Cancer Center
Belarus
Belarus
References
1. Vaquero J. J., Kinahan P. Positron Emission Tomography: Current Challenges and Opportunities for Technological Advances in Clinical and Preclinical Imaging Systems. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 2015, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 385–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040723
2. Soret M., Bacharach S. L., Buvat I. Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2007, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 932–945. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
3. Moses W. W. Fundamental Limits of Spatial Resolution in PET. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 2011, vol. 648, supplement 1, pp. S236–S240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.092
4. Srinivas S. M., Dhurairaj T., Basu S., Bural G., Surti S., Alavi A. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Annals of Nuclear Medicine, 2009, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-009-0241-9
5. Chipiga L., Vodovatov A., Kataeva G. et al. Proposals of quality assurance in positron emission tomography in Russia. Meditsinskaya fizika = Medical Physics, 2019, no. 82 (2), рр. 78–92 (in Russian).
6. Kumar R., Pandey A., Sharma P., Pandey M., Aswathi K., Malhotra A. Spreadsheet program for estimating recovery coefficient to get partial volume corrected standardized uptake value in clinical positron emission tomography-computed tomography studies. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2012, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 89–94. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-3919.110688
7. Hoetjes N. J., Velden F. H. P. van, Hoekstra O. S., Hoekstra C. J., Krak N. C., Lammertsma A. A., Boellaard R. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2010, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1472-7
8. Meechai T., Tepmongkol S., Pluempitiwiriyawej C. Partial-volume effect correction in positron emission tomography brain scan image using super-resolution image reconstruction. The British Journal of Radiology, 2015, vol. 88, no. 1046, p. 20140119. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140119
9. Chipiga L. A., Zvonova I. A., Kataeva G. V., Kostenikov N. A. Image quality control in positron emission tomography using the madeira phantom. Medicinskaya fizika =Medical Physics, 2014, no. 3 (63), pp. 48–56 (in Russian).
10. Daube-Witherspoon M. E., Karp J. S., Casey M. E., DiFilippo F. P., Hines H., Muehllehner G., Simcic V., Stearns C. W., Adam L.-E., Kohlmyer S., Sossi V. PET Performance Measurements Using the NEMA NU 2-2001 Standard. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2002, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1398–1409.
Review
Views: 452
Email this article 
