An article published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine (JNM) is free and open to the public six months after its publication: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/
microPET; small-animal PET scanner; image quality performance; image reconstruction methods
Abstract :
[en] This work aimed to evaluate the image quality and accuracy of attenuation and scatter corrections provided with the microPET Focus 120 scanner using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU4-2008 image quality phantom. Methods: Attenuation correction was obtained from transmission measurements using either a 68Ge or a 57Copoint source. Fully correctedemission images were reconstructed using Fourier rebinning (FORE) and filtered backprojection (FBP). For attenuation data obtained with the 57Co source, fully corrected emission images were also reconstructed using FORE and 2-dimensional (2D) ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM), 3-dimensional (3D) filtered backprojection (3DRP), 3D OSEM, and 3D maximum a posteriori methods. The mean activity, the coefficients of variation (COVs) of the uniform slices, the recovery coefficients (RCs) for hot rods, and the spillover ratio (SOR) for nonemittingwater and air compartments were measured. Results: For 57Co-based attenuation correction, the mean activity value differed by less than 3% from the true activity.Measuring the attenuation with 68Ge resulted in lower reconstructed activity and higher COV. On the basis of 57Co measurements, the SORs for air and water nonemitting compartments were the closest to zero for attenuation correction. The RC measured on emission images corrected for attenuation but not for scatter did not show any significant difference linked to the transmissionmethod. However, higherRCswere noted for transmission measurement with 68Ge in coincidence with windowing when emission data were corrected for attenuation and scatter. This resulted from a lower mean value in the uniform area. 2D and 3DRP reconstructionmethods showed little effect on themean activity value, whereas iterative 3D methods gave 7%higher values. Higher RCs were found with iterative reconstruction than with FBP and 3DRP. However, the SOR seemed to be optimal with FBP. SORs were higher with iterative methods and decreased with the number of iterations. Conclusion: For studies of small rodents with the Focus 120, 57Co transmission seems to be the most suitable method for attenuation correction. FORE and 2D reconstruction methods appear to be a good compromise between overall image quality and reconstruction time: OSEM provides the largest contrasts, but FBP provides superior attenuation and scatter correction.
Research center :
GIGA CRC (Cyclotron Research Center) In vivo Imaging-Aging & Memory - ULiège
Disciplines :
Physics Radiology, nuclear medicine & imaging
Author, co-author :
Bahri, Mohamed Ali ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Centre de recherches du cyclotron
Plenevaux, Alain ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Centre de recherches du cyclotron
Warnock, Geoffrey ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Centre de recherches du cyclotron
Luxen, André ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de chimie (sciences) > Chimie organique de synthèse - Centre de recherches du cyclotron
Seret, Alain ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de physique > Imagerie médicale expérimentale
Language :
English
Title :
NEMA NU4-2008 Image Quality Performance Report for the microPET Focus 120 and for Various Transmission and Reconstruction Methods
Publication date :
October 2009
Journal title :
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
ISSN :
0161-5505
eISSN :
1535-5667
Publisher :
Society of Nuclear Medicine, Reston, United States - Virginia
Volume :
50
Pages :
1730-1738
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Funders :
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique [BE]
Pomper MG. Can small animal imaging accelerate drug development? J Cell Biochem Suppl. 2002;39:211-220.
Pomper MG, Lee JS. Small animal imaging in drug development. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11:3247-3272. (Pubitemid 41300775)
Cherry SR. The 2006 Henry N. Wagner lecture: of mice and men (and positrons) - advances in PET imaging technology. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1735-1745.
Del Guerra A, Belcari N. State-of-the-art of PET scanners for small animal and breast cancer imaging. Nucl Instrum Meth Phys Res Section A-Accel Spect Detect Assoc Equip. 2007;580:910-914. (Pubitemid 47379912)
Kim JS, Lee JS, Im KC, et al. Performance measurement of the microPET Focus 120 scanner. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1527-1535.
Tai C, Chatziioannou A, Siegel S, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET P4: a PET system dedicated to animal imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:1845-1862. (Pubitemid 32677543)
Knoess C, Siegel S, Smith A, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET R4 PET scanner for rodents. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:737-747. (Pubitemid 36612958)
Tai YC, Ruangma A, Rowland D, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET Focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:455-463. (Pubitemid 43093155)
Lehnert W, Meikle SR, Siegel S, Newport D, Banati RB, Rosenfeld AB. Evaluation of transmission methodology and attenuation correction for the microPET Focus 220 animal scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:4003-4016. (Pubitemid 44177403)
Laforest R, Longford D, Siegel S, Newport DF, Yap J. Performance evaluation of the microPET-FOCUS - F120. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54:42-49.
Laforest R, Longford D, Siegel S, Newport DF, Yap J. Performance evaluation of the microPET-Focus - F120. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2004;5:2965-2969.
Bao Q, Newport D, Chen M, Stout DB, Chatziioannou AF. Performance evaluation of the Inveon dedicated PET preclinical tomograph based on the NEMA NU-4 standards. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:401-408.
Visser EP, Disselhorst JA, Brom M, et al. Spatial resolution and sensitivity of the Inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:139-147.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance Measurements of Small Animal Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU4-2008. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2008.
Tai YC, Chatziioannou AF, Yang Y, et al. MicroPET II: design, development and initial performance of an improved microPET scanner for small-animal imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1519-1537. (Pubitemid 36713333)
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;16:145-158. (Pubitemid 127762926)
Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601-609.
Kinahan PE, Rogers JG. Analytic 3D image reconstruction using all detected events. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1989;36:964-968.
Yao R, Seidel J, Johnson CA, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Green MV, Carson RE. Performance characteristics of the 3-D OSEM algorithm in the reconstruction of small animal PET images: ordered-subsets expectation-maximization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:798-804.
Qi J, Leahy RM. Resolution and noise properties of MAP reconstruction for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:493-506. (Pubitemid 30964415)
Qi J, Leahy RM, Cherry SR, Chatziioannou A, Farquhar TH. High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:1001-1013. (Pubitemid 28168428)
Qi JY, Leahy RM, Hsu CH, Farquhar TH, Cherry SR. Fully 3D Bayesian image reconstruction for theECATEXACT HR+. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1998;45:1096-1103. (Pubitemid 128739166)
Badawi RD, Marsden PK. Developments in component-based normalization for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:571-594.
Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med. 1987;28:1717-1724. (Pubitemid 17160290)
Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587-1594.
Watson CC, Newport D, Casey ME, DeKemp RA, Beanlands RS, Schmand M. Evaluation of simulation-based scatter correction for 3-D PET cardiac imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1997;44:90-97. (Pubitemid 127827056)
Karp JS, Daubewitherspoon ME, Hoffman EJ, et al. Performance standards in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:2342-2350.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU2-1994. Rosslyn: VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1994.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU2- 2001. Rosslyn: VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.
Fang YH, Muzic RF Jr. Spillover and partial-volume correction for image-derived input functions for small-animal 18F-FDG PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:606-614.
Vandervoort E, Sossi V. Impact of contamination from scattered photons in singles-mode transmission data on quantitative small-animal PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1852-1861.
Vandervoort E, Sossi V. An analytical scatter correction for singles-mode transmission data in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2008;27:402-412. (Pubitemid 351324788)
Liew SC, Hasegawa BH, Brown JK, Lang TF. Noise propagation in SPECT images reconstructed using an iterative maximum-likelihood algorithm. Phys Med Biol. 1993;38:1713-1726.
