Cited by 277Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging

Impact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection

Open access
Kadrmas, Dan J., Casey, Michael E., Conti, Maurizio, Jakoby, Bjoern W., Lois, Cristina, Townsend, David W.·2009·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Time-of-flight (TOF) PET uses very fast detectors to improve localization of events along coincidence lines-of-response. This information is then utilized to improve the tomographic reconstruction. This work evaluates the effect of TOF upon an observer's performance for detecting and localizing focal warm lesions in noisy PET images. METHODS: An advanced anthropomorphic lesion-detection phantom was scanned 12 times over 3 days on a prototype TOF PET/CT scanner (Siemens Medical Solutions). The phantom was devised to mimic whole-body oncologic (18)F-FDG PET imaging, and a number of spheric lesions (diameters 6-16 mm) were distributed throughout the phantom. The data were reconstructed with the baseline line-of-response ordered-subsets expectation-maximization algorithm, with the baseline algorithm plus point spread function model (PSF), baseline plus TOF, and with both PSF+TOF. The lesion-detection performance of each reconstruction was compared and ranked using localization receiver operating characteristics (LROC) analysis with both human and numeric observers. The phantom results were then subjectively compared to 2 illustrative patient scans reconstructed with PSF and with PSF+TOF. RESULTS: Inclusion of TOF information provides a significant improvement in the area under the LROC curve compared to the baseline algorithm without TOF data (P = 0.002), providing a degree of improvement similar to that obtained with the PSF model. Use of both PSF+TOF together provided a cumulative benefit in lesion-detection performance, significantly outperforming either PSF or TOF alone (P < 0.002). Example patient images reflected the same image characteristics that gave rise to improved performance in the phantom data. CONCLUSION: Time-of-flight PET provides a significant improvement in observer performance for detecting focal warm lesions in a noisy background. These improvements in image quality can be expected to improve performance for the clinical tasks of detecting lesions and staging disease. Further study in a large clinical population is warranted to assess the benefit of TOF for various patient sizes and count levels, and to demonstrate effective performance in the clinical environment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.109.063016

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Investigations with an anthropomorphic phantom or simulated liver and lung lesions have shown that TOF and PSF can have a supplementary effect on increasing lesion detection rates.

    “Investigations with an anthropomorphic phantom or with simulated liver and lung lesions have shown that TOF and PSF can have a supplementary effect on increasing lesion detection rates [161,163].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [163]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1]Allemand R Gresset C Vacher J Potential advantages of a cesium fluoride scintillator for a time-of-flight positron camera. J Nucl Med 1980 21 153 155 6965404
  2. [2]Mullani NA Markham J Ter-Pogossian MM Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 1980 21 1095 1097 6968822
  3. [3]Ter-Pogossian MM Mullani NA Ficke DC Markham J Snyder DL Photon time-of-flight-assisted positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1981 5 227 239 6971303
  4. [4]Conti M Bendriem B Casey M First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol 2005 50 4507 4526 16177486
  5. [5]Karp JS Surti S Daube-Witherspoon ME Muehllehner G Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med 2008 49 462 470 18287269 PMC2639717
  6. [6]Surti S Karp JS Popescu LM Daube-Witherspoon ME Werner M Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006 25 529 538 16689258
  7. [7]Surti S Kuhn A Werner ME Perkins AE Kolthammer J Karp JS Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 2007 48 471 480 17332626
  8. [8]Budinger TF Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med 1983 24 73 78 6336778
  9. [9]Tomitani T Image-reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time-of-flight assisted positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1981 28 4581 4589
  10. [10]Watson CC An evaluation of image noise variance for time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2007 54 1639 1647
  11. [11]Surti S Karp JS Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol 2009 54 373 384 21 19098351 PMC2662381
  12. [12]Farquhar TH Llacer J Sayre J Tai YC Hoffman EJ ROC and LROC analyses of the effects of lesion contrast, size, and signal-to-noise ratio on detectability in PET images. J Nucl Med 2000 41 745 754 10768578
  13. [13]Swensson RG Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys 1996 23 1709 1725 8946368
  14. [14]Kadrmas DJ Christian PE Comparative evaluation of lesion detectability for 6 PET imaging platforms using a highly reproducible whole-body phantom with 22Na lesions and localization ROC analysis. J Nucl Med 2002 43 1545 1554 12411558
  15. [15]Kadrmas DJ Casey ME Black NF Hamill JJ Panin VY Conti M Experimental comparison of lesion detectability for four fully-3D PET reconstruction schemes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009 28 523 534 19272998 PMC2798572
  16. [18]Kadrmas DJ LOR-OSEM: statistical PET reconstruction from raw line-of-response histograms. Phys Med Biol 2004 49 4731 4744 15566171 PMC2903972
  17. [21]Gifford HC Kinahan PE Lartizien C King MA Evaluation of multiclass model observers in PET LROC studies. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2007 54 116 123 18392119 PMC2288579
  18. [22]Gifford HC King MA Pretorius PH Wells RG A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005 24 160 169 15707242
  19. [23]Hanley JA McNeil BJ The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982 143 29 36 7063747
  20. [24]Nawfel RD Chan KH Wagenaar DJ Judy PF Evaluation of video gray-scale display. Med Phys 1992 19 561 567 1508090
  21. [25]Popescu LM Nonparametric ROC and LROC analysis. Med Phys 2007 34 1556 1564 17555237

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kadrmas, D. J., Casey, M. E., Conti, M., Jakoby, B. W., Lois, C., & Townsend, D. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Siemens (Germany) (DE)
  • Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2009-07-17
Volume
50
Issue
8
Pages
1315-1323
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2059842805
Cited by
277
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 19
FWCI
16.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R33CA094317, R33 CA94317, R01CA107353)
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
time-of-flight PET, tumor detection, lesion localization, point spread function, observer performance, 18F-FDG PET, PET/CT, tomographic reconstruction, tumor staging
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Neoplasms, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Positron-Emission Tomography, Whole Body Imaging

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