Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2023; 22(03): 234-243
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1774418
Original Article

3D-OSEM versus FORE + OSEM: Optimal Reconstruction Algorithm for FDG PET with a Short Acquisition Time

Keisuke Tsuda
1   Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Health Science, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
2   Division of Functional Imaging, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center (EPOC), National Cancer Center, Japan
,
Takayuki Suzuki
2   Division of Functional Imaging, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center (EPOC), National Cancer Center, Japan
3   Department of Radiology, Tohto Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kazuhito Toya
4   Department of Radiology, International University of Health and Welfare Mita Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Eisuke Sato
1   Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Health Science, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Hirofumi Fujii 
2   Division of Functional Imaging, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center (EPOC), National Cancer Center, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was partially supported by a Collaborative Research Grant to the Faculty of Health Science from Juntendo University, Japan.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective In this study, we investigated the optimal reconstruction algorithm in fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with a short acquisition time.

Materials and Methods In the phantom study, six spheres filled with FDG solution (sphere size: 6.23–37 mm; radioactivity ratio of spheres to background = 8:1) and placed in a National Electrical Manufacturers Association phantom were evaluated. Image acquisition time was 15 to 180 seconds, and the obtained image data were reconstructed using each of the Fourier rebinning (FORE) + ordered subsets expectation-maximization (OSEM) and 3D-OSEM algorithms. In the clinical study, mid-abdominal images of 19 patients were evaluated using regions of interest placed on areas of low, intermediate, and high radioactivity. All obtained images were investigated visually, and quantitatively using maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) and coefficient of variation (CV).

Results In the phantom study, FORE + OSEM images with a short acquisition time had large CVs (poor image quality) but comparatively constant maximum SUVs. 3D-OSEM images showed comparatively constant CVs (good image quality) but significantly low maximum SUVs. The results of visual evaluation were well correlated with those of quantitative evaluation. Small spheres were obscured on 3D-OSEM images with short acquisition time, but image quality was not greatly deteriorated. The clinical and phantom studies yielded similar results.

Conclusion FDG PET images with a short acquisition time reconstructed by FORE + OSEM showed poorer image quality than by 3D-OSEM. However, images obtained with a short acquisition time and reconstructed with FORE + OSEM showed clearer FDG uptake and more useful than 3D-OSEM in the light of the detection of lesions.

Keywords

positron emission tomography - short acquisition time - reconstruction - ordered subsets expectation-maximization - Fourier rebinning

Authors' Contribution

Keisuke Tsuda and Hirofumi Fujii were involved in conceptualization, designing, definition of intellectual content, literature search, clinical studies, experimental studies, data acquisition, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. Takayuki Suzuki and Kazuhito Toya contributed to designing, definition of intellectual content, clinical studies, experimental studies, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. Eisuke Sato helped in designing, definition of intellectual content, data analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. Hirofumi Fujii has provided guarantee for this study.


Note

This paper was presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) 2011 Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, between June 4 and 8, 2011.




Publication History

Article published online:
13 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Michail CM, Karpetas GE, Fountos GP. et al. A novel method for the optimization of positron emission tomography scanners imaging performance. Hell J Nucl Med 2016; 19 (03) 231-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Te Riet J, Rijnsdorp S, Roef MJ, Arends AJ. Evaluation of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for low-count clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys 2019; 6 (01) 32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T. et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41 (08) 1369-1379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tsuda K, Aikawa N, Suzuki T. et al. Segmental acquisition method for stationary objects in (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography tests. Jpn J Radiol 2010; 28 (08) 591-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Iatrou M, Ross SG, Manjeshwar RM, Stearns CW. A fully 3D iterative image reconstruction algorithm incorporating data corrections. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2004; 4: 2493-2497
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Liu X, Comtat C, Michel C, Kinahan P, Defrise M, Townsend D. Comparison of 3-D reconstruction with 3D-OSEM and with FORE+OSEM for PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001; 20 (08) 804-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Inoue K, Moriya E, Suzuki T. et al. The usefulness of fully three-dimensional OSEM algorithm on lymph node metastases from lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2011; 25 (04) 277-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs (PET). NEMA Standards Publication NU 2–2018. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Defrise M, Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Michel C, Sibomana M, Newport DF. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3-D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997; 16 (02) 145-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994; 13 (04) 601-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AHR, Von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29 (07) 922-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ollinger JM. Model-based scatter correction for fully 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41 (01) 153-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Menezes VO, Machado MA, Queiroz CC. et al. Optimization of oncological 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging based on a multiparameter analysis. Med Phys 2016; 43 (02) 930-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Strobel K, Rüdy M, Treyer V, Veit-Haibach P, Burger C, Hany TF. Objective and subjective comparison of standard 2-D and fully 3-D reconstructed data on a PET/CT system. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28 (07) 555-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B. et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging–initial experience. Radiology 2003; 229 (03) 913-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Karaoglanis K, Polycarpou I, Efthimiou N, Tsoumpas C. Appropriately regularized OSEM can improve the reconstructed PET images of data with low count statistics. Hell J Nucl Med 2015; 18 (02) 140-145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brown C, Dempsey MF, Gillen G, Elliott AT. Investigation of 18F-FDG 3D mode PET image quality versus acquisition time. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31 (03) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kagna O, Solomonov A, Keidar Z. et al. The value of FDG-PET/CT in assessing single pulmonary nodules in patients at high risk of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36 (06) 997-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar