Improved Absolute Quantification using Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction on a Digital PET/CT – Towards True Uptake Measurement
Open accessAbstract
Background To evaluate the quantification accuracy, we measured the recovery coefficient (RC) and contrast recovery (CR) in a phantom study and used it as a guide in clinical evaluation about digital positron emission tomography -computed tomography (PET/CT). Methods The RC and CR of the PET images reconstructed with 4 different methods [ordered subsets expectation maximazation (OSEM), time of flight(TOF), TOF-point spread function (PSF), bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL)] were measured in the phantom study. And, SUVmax and SUVmean (the maximum and mean of the standardized uptake values, SUVs) of 75 small pulmonary nodules (sub-centimeter group: <10 mm and medium size group: 10 - 25 mm) from 26 patients were measured with those methods. For lesions smaller than 3 times of the spatial resolution, partial-volume-effect correction (PVC) based on RC values was performed. Results BPL enables higher RC and CR values, which can improve quantification accuracy compared with other methods (P < 0.05), except for the RC of 37 mm sphere (P > 0.05). The SUVs of sub-centimeter fludeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid pulmonary nodules with BPL illustrated highly significant difference from those reconstructed with other algorithms (P<0.001). However, reconstruction algorithms had less impact on SUVs measured in medium group (P>0.05). With the PVC, highly significant difference (P<0.001) still existed in the SUVmean measured on BPL compared with those measured on the other 3 algorithms, although PVC had the least effect on BPL. Conclusions BPL on the digital PET/CT demonstrated improved quantification accuracy. For small pulmonary nodules, PVC is important.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The PL reconstruction effect has been confirmed by increasing lesion SUVmax compared with TOF and PSF reconstruction, particularly in small pulmonary lesions.
“This has been confirmed by increasing lesion SUVmax compared with TOF and PSF reconstruction, particularly in small pulmonary lesions [110,111].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [110]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging
Soret, M., Bacharach, S. L., & Buvat, I. (2007) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.106.035774 · Cited by 1,575 · see citing works
Pastorino, U., Bellomi, M., Landoni, C., Fiori, E. D., Arnaldi, P., Picchio, M., Pelosi, G., Boyle, P., & Fazio, F. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14188-8 · Cited by 447 · see citing works
Effect of respiratory gating on quantifying PET images of lung cancer.
Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Schöder, H. M., Larson, S. M., Macapinlac, H. A., Squire, O. D., & Humm, J. L. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 406 · see citing works
18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response
Ben‐Haim, S., & Ell, P. J. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.054205 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Nomori, H., Watanabe, K., Ohtsuka, T., Naruke, T., Suemasu, K., & Uno, K. (2004) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.01.009 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Sironi, S., Buda, A. A., Picchio, M., Perego, P., Moreni, R., Pellegrino, A., Colombo, M., Mangioni, C., Messa, C., & Fazio, F. (2006) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2381041799 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer
Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C., Rosenzweig, K., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., et al. (2002) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1448824 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs.
Erdi, Y. E., Nehmeh, S. A., Pan, T., Pevsner, A., Rosenzweig, K. E., Mageras, G. S., Yorke, E. D., Schöder, H. M., Hsiao, W., Squire, O. D., et al. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Teoh, E. J., McGowan, D. R., Macpherson, R. E., Bradley, K. M., & Gleeson, F. V. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159301 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Studies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier–Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System
Hsu, D. F. C., Ilan, E., Peterson, W. T., Uribe, J., Lubberink, M., & Levin, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.189514 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET
van der Vos, C. S., Koopman, D., Rijnsdorp, S., Arends, A. J., Boellaard, R., van Dalen, J. A., Lubberink, M., Willemsen, A. T. M., & Visser, E. P. (2017) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values.
Jaskowiak, C., Bianco, J. A., Perlman, S. B., & Fine, J. P. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study
Geworski, L., Knoop, B. O., de Cabrejas, M. L., Knapp, W. H., & Munz, D. L. (2000) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s002590050022 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Herder, G., Golding, R. P., Hoekstra, O., Comans, E. F. I., Teule, G. J. J., Postmus, P. E., & Smit, E. F. (2004) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-004-1552-7 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges
Tong, S., Alessio, A. M., & Kinahan, P. E. (2010) · Imaging in Medicine · doi:10.2217/iim.10.49 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Alkhawaldeh, K. M., Bural, G. G., Kumar, R., & Alavi, A. A. (2007) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0584-1 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT
Wagatsuma, K., Miwa, K., Sakata, M., Oda, K., Ono, H., Kameyama, M., Toyohara, J., & Ishii, K. (2017) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.09.124 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images
Srinivas, S. M., Dhurairaj, T., Basu, S. K., Bural, G. G., Surti, S., & Alavi, A. A. (2009) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-009-0241-9 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Relation between nodule size and 18F-FDG-PET SUV for malignant and benign pulmonary nodules.
Khalaf, M., Abdel-Nabi, H. H., Baker, J., Shao, Y., Lamonica, D. M., & Gona, J. (2008) · Journal of Hematology & Oncology · doi:10.1186/1756-8722-1-13 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
The Role of 18F-FDG PET in Assessing Therapy Response in Cancer of the Cervix and Ovaries
Schwarz, J. K., Grigsby, P. W., Dehdashti, F., & Delbeke, D. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057257 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Teoh, E. J., McGowan, D. R., Bradley, K. M., Belcher, E., Black, E., & Gleeson, F. V. (2016) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3832-y · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Werner, M. K., Parker, J. A., Kolodny, G. M., English, J. R., & Palmer, M. R. (2009) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.09.2516 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Jentzen, W., Weise, R., Kupferschläger, J., Freudenberg, L. S., Brandau, W., Bares, R., Burchert, W., & Bockisch, A. (2007) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0554-7 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Parvizi, N., Franklin, J. M., McGowan, D. R., Teoh, E., Bradley, K. M., & Gleeson, F. V. (2015) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.025 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Suzawa, N., Ito, M., Qiao, S., Uchida, K., Takao, M., Yamada, T., Takeda, K., & Murashima, S. (2010) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.08.017 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Initial experience with a SiPM-based PET/CT scanner: influence of acquisition time on image quality
Sonni, I., Baratto, L., Park, S., Hatami, N., Srinivas, S., Davidzon, G., Gambhir, S. S., & Iagaru, A. (2018) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-018-0207-x · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Howard, B. A., Morgan, R., Thorpe, M. P., Turkington, T. G., Oldan, J., James, O. G., & Borges-Neto, S. (2017) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-017-1192-1 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
What causes false-negative PET findings for solid-type lung cancer?
Iwano, S., Ito, S., Tsuchiya, K., Kato, K., & Naganawa, S. (2012) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.10.018 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Teoh, E., McGowan, D. R., Bradley, K. M., Belcher, E., Black, E., Moore, A., Sykes, A., & Gleeson, F. V. (2016) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4253-2 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Fox, J. J., Autran-Blanc, E., Morris, M. J., Gavane, S. C., Nehmeh, S. A., Nuffel, A. V., Gönen, M., Schöder, H. M., Humm, J. L., Scher, H. I., et al. (2011) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.089326 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Baratto, L., Park, S. Y., Hatami, N., Davidzon, G., Srinivas, S. M., Gambhir, S. S., & Iagaru, A. H. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178936 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Moving the goalposts while scoring―the dilemma posed by new PET technologies
Rogasch, J. M. M., Boellaard, R., Pike, L., Borchmann, P., Johnson, P., Wolf, J., Barrington, S. F., & Kobe, C. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05403-2 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wu, Z., Qin, Z., Huang, B., Guo, B., Hao, X., Wu, P., Zhao, B., Xie, J., & Li, S.
- Affiliations
- Shanxi Medical University (CN)
- Published
- 2020-03-13
- OpenAlex
- W4243271538
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
- Keywords
- Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction, standardized uptake value, recovery coefficient, contrast recovery, partial volume correction, small pulmonary nodules, FDG-PET, time-of-flight PET, OSEM, point spread function, digital PET
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
