Suppr超能文献

转移性乳腺癌患者 FDG-PET/CT 图像上 Q.Clear 与 OSEM 重建方法的图像质量和定量参数比较

Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

作者信息

Naghavi-Behzad Mohammad, Vogsen Marianne, Gerke Oke, Dahlsgaard-Wallenius Sara Elisabeth, Nissen Henriette Juel, Jakobsen Nick Møldrup, Braad Poul-Erik, Vilstrup Mie Holm, Deak Paul, Hildebrandt Malene Grubbe, Andersen Thomas Lund

机构信息

Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark.

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark.

出版信息

J Imaging. 2023 Mar 9;9(3):65. doi: 10.3390/jimaging9030065.

Abstract

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SUL (g/mL) and SUV (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness ( < 0.001) and contrast ( = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction ( < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SUL (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, < 0.001) and SUV (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUV, and higher SUL, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.

摘要

我们通过贝叶斯惩罚似然重建算法(Q.Clear)和有序子集期望最大化(OSEM)算法,对前瞻性环境下转移性乳腺癌患者进行的2-[F]FDG-PET/CT扫描的图像质量和定量参数进行了比较。我们纳入了37例在丹麦欧登塞大学医院接受2-[F]FDG-PET/CT诊断和监测的转移性乳腺癌患者。使用五点量表,对100次扫描进行了分析,在图像质量参数(噪声、清晰度、对比度、诊断置信度、伪影和斑点状外观)方面,对Q.Clear和OSEM重建算法进行了盲法评估。在有可测量疾病的扫描中选择最热点的病变,两种重建方法考虑相同的感兴趣体积。比较了同一最热点病变的标准摄取值(SUL,g/mL)和标准化摄取值(SUV,g/mL)。在重建方法中,噪声、诊断置信度和伪影方面没有显著差异;Q.Clear的清晰度(<0.001)和对比度(=0.001)明显优于OSEM重建,而与Q.Clear重建相比,OSEM重建的斑点状外观明显更少(<0.001)。对75/100次扫描的定量分析表明,与OSEM重建相比,Q.Clear重建的SUL(5.33±2.8 vs. 4.85±2.5,<0.001)和SUV(8.27±4.8 vs. 6.90±3.8,<0.001)明显更高。总之,Q.Clear重建显示出更好的清晰度、更好的对比度、更高的SUV和更高的SUL,而OSEM重建的斑点状外观更少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验