Xu Lei, Li Ru-Shuai, Wu Run-Ze, Yang Rui, You Qin-Qin, Yao Xiao-Chen, Xie Hui-Fang, Lv Yang, Dong Yun, Wang Feng, Meng Qing-Le
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 68 Changle Road, Nanjing, 210006, China.
United Imaging Healthcare, 2258 Chengbei Road, Shanghai, 201870, China.
EJNMMI Phys. 2022 Mar 26;9(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40658-022-00451-5.
To investigate the influence of small voxel Bayesian penalized likelihood (SVB) reconstruction on small lesion detection compared to ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction using a clinical trials network (CTN) chest phantom and the patients with F-FDG-avid small lung tumors, and determine the optimal penalty factor for the lesion depiction and quantification.
The CTN phantom was filled with F solution with a sphere-to-background ratio of 3.81:1. Twenty-four patients with F-FDG-avid lung lesions (diameter < 2 cm) were enrolled. Six groups of PET images were reconstructed: routine voxel OSEM (RVOSEM), small voxel OSEM (SVOSEM), and SVB reconstructions with four penalty factors: 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 (SVB0.6, SVB0.8, SVB0.9, and SVB1.0). The routine and small voxel sizes are 4 × 4 × 4 and 2 × 2 × 2 mm. The recovery coefficient (RC) was calculated by dividing the measured activity by the injected activity of the hot spheres in the phantom study. The SUV, target-to-liver ratio (TLR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the volume of the lesions, and the image noise of the liver were measured and calculated in the patient study. Visual image quality of the patient image was scored by two radiologists using a 5-point scale.
In the phantom study, SVB0.6, SVB0.8, and SVB0.9 achieved higher RCs than SVOSEM. The RC was higher in SVOSEM than RVOSEM and SVB1.0. In the patient study, the SUV, TLR, and visual image quality scores of SVB0.6 to SVB0.9 were higher than those of RVOSEM, while the image noise of SVB0.8 to SVB1.0 was equivalent to or lower than that of RVOSEM. All SVB groups had higher CNRs than RVOSEM, but there was no difference between RVOSEM and SVOSEM. The lesion volumes derived from SVB0.6 to SVB0.9 were accurate, but over-estimated by RVOSEM, SVOSEM, and SVB1.0, using the CT measurement as the standard reference.
The SVB reconstruction improved lesion contrast, TLR, CNR, and volumetric quantification accuracy for small lesions compared to RVOSEM reconstruction without image noise degradation or the need of longer emission time. A penalty factor of 0.8-0.9 was optimal for SVB reconstruction for the small tumor detection with F-FDG PET/CT.
使用临床试验网络(CTN)胸部体模和F-FDG摄取的小肺肿瘤患者,研究与有序子集期望最大化(OSEM)重建相比,小体素贝叶斯惩罚似然(SVB)重建对小病变检测的影响,并确定病变描绘和定量的最佳惩罚因子。
CTN体模填充F溶液,球体与背景比为3.81:1。纳入24例F-FDG摄取的肺病变(直径<2 cm)患者。重建六组PET图像:常规体素OSEM(RVOSEM)、小体素OSEM(SVOSEM)以及具有四个惩罚因子(0.6、0.8、0.9和1.0)的SVB重建(SVB0.6、SVB0.8、SVB0.9和SVB1.0)。常规和小体素大小分别为4×4×4和2×2×2 mm。在体模研究中,通过将测量的活性除以热球体的注入活性来计算恢复系数(RC)。在患者研究中,测量并计算SUV、靶肝比(TLR)、对比度噪声比(CNR)、病变体积和肝脏图像噪声。两名放射科医生使用5分制对患者图像的视觉图像质量进行评分。
在体模研究中,SVB0.6、SVB0.8和SVB0.9的RC高于SVOSEM。SVOSEM的RC高于RVOSEM和SVB1.0。在患者研究中,SVB0.6至SVB0.9的SUV、TLR和视觉图像质量评分高于RVOSEM,而SVB0.8至SVB1.0的图像噪声等于或低于RVOSEM。所有SVB组的CNR均高于RVOSEM,但RVOSEM和SVOSEM之间无差异。以CT测量作为标准参考,SVB0.6至SVB0.9得出的病变体积准确,但RVOSEM、SVOSEM和SVB1.0高估了病变体积。
与RVOSEM重建相比,SVB重建提高了小病变的对比度、TLR、CNR和体积定量准确性,且不会降低图像噪声或需要更长的发射时间。对于F-FDG PET/CT检测小肿瘤,惩罚因子0.8-0.9是SVB重建的最佳选择。