Optimization of Time-of-flight Reconstruction on Philips GEMINI TF

Overview

Journal Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Specialties Biophysics
Nuclear Medicine
Radiology

Date 2009 Jun 16

PMID 19526237

Citations 3

Authors

Stefaan Vandenberghe

Larry van Elmbt

Michel Guerchaft

Enrico Clementel

Jeroen Verhaeghe

Anne Bol

Ignace Lemahieu

Max Lonneux

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to optimize different parameters in the time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction for the Philips GEMINI TF. The use of TOF in iterative reconstruction introduces additional variables to be optimized compared to conventional PET reconstruction. The different parameters studied are the TOF kernel width, the kernel truncation (used to reduce reconstruction time) and the scatter correction method.

Methods: These parameters are optimized using measured phantom studies. All phantom studies were acquired with a very high number of counts to limit the effects of noise. A high number of iterations (33 subsets and 3 iterations) was used to reach convergence. The figures of merit are the uniformity in the background, the cold spot recovery and the hot spot contrast. As reference results we used the non-TOF reconstruction of the same data sets.

Results: It is shown that contrast recovery loss can only be avoided if the kernel is extended to more than 3 standard deviations. To obtain uniform reconstructions the recommended scatter correction is TOF single scatter simulation (SSS). This also leads to improved cold spot recovery and hot spot contrast. While the daily measurements of the system show a timing resolution in the range of 590–600 ps, the optimal reconstructions are obtained with a TOF kernel full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 650–700 ps. The optimal kernel width seems to be less critical for the recovered contrast but has an important effect on the background uniformity. Using smaller or wider kernels results in a less uniform background and reduced hot and cold contrast recovery.

Conclusion: The different parameters studied have a large effect on the quantitative accuracy of the reconstructed images. The optimal settings from this study can be used as a guideline to make an objective comparison of the gains obtained with TOF PET versus PET reconstruction.

Citing Articles

A NIM PET/CT phantom for evaluating the PET image quality of micro-lesions and the performance parameters of CT.

Lu S, Zhang P, Li C, Sun J, Liu W, Zhang P BMC Med Imaging. 2021; 21(1):165.

PMID: 34749660 PMC: 8576981. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-021-00683-4.

Recent developments in time-of-flight PET.

Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, DHoe E, Mollet P, Karp J EJNMMI Phys. 2016; 3(1):3.

PMID: 26879863 PMC: 4754240. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3.

Improvement in PET/CT image quality in overweight patients with PSF and TOF.

Taniguchi T, Akamatsu G, Kasahara Y, Mitsumoto K, Baba S, Tsutsui Y Ann Nucl Med. 2014; 29(1):71-7.

PMID: 25258046 PMC: 4661192. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-014-0912-z.

References

Vandenberghe S, Daube-Witherspoon M, Lewitt R, Karp J . Fast reconstruction of 3D time-of-flight PET data by axial rebinning and transverse mashing. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(6):1603-21. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/6/017. View

Wong W . PET camera performance design evaluation for BGO and BaF2 scintillators (non-time-of-flight). J Nucl Med. 1988; 29(3):338-47. View

Popescu L, Lewitt R . Small nodule detectability evaluation using a generalized scan-statistic model. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(23):6225-44. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/23/020. View

Accorsi R, Adam L, Werner M, Karp J . Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49(12):2577-98. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/12/008. View

van Eijk C . Radiation detector developments in medical applications: inorganic scintillators in positron emission tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 129(1-3):13-21. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn043. View

Budinger T . Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983; 24(1):73-8. View

Defrise M, Casey M, Michel C, Conti M . Fourier rebinning of time-of-flight PET data. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(12):2749-63. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/12/002. View

Mallon A, Grangeat P . Three-dimensional PET reconstruction with time-of-flight measurement. Phys Med Biol. 1992; 37(3):717-29. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/37/3/016. View

Surti S, Karp J, Popescu L, Daube-Witherspoon M, Werner M . Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006; 25(5):529-38. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2006.871419. View

10.

Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey M, Chen M, Kehren F, Michel C . First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(19):4507-26. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/19/006. View

11.

Karp J, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon M, Muehllehner G . Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(3):462-70. PMC: 2639717. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.044834. View

12.

Mullani N, Markham J, Ter-Pogossian M . Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980; 21(11):1095-7. View

13.

Yamamoto M, Ficke D, Ter-Pogossian M . Experimental Assessment of the Gain Achieved by the Utilization of Time-of-Flight Information in a Positron Emission Tomograph (Super PETT I). IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982; 1(3):187-92. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.1982.4307571. View

14.

Parra L, Barrett H . List-mode likelihood: EM algorithm and image quality estimation demonstrated on 2-D PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998; 17(2):228-35. PMC: 2969844. DOI: 10.1109/42.700734. View

15.

Ter-Pogossian M, Mullani N, Ficke D, Markham J, Snyder D . Photon time-of-flight-assisted positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1981; 5(2):227-39. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-198104000-00014. View

16.

Lewellen T . Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med. 1998; 28(3):268-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-2998(98)80031-7. View

17.

Surti S, Karp J, Muehllehner G . Image quality assessment of LaBr3-based whole-body 3D PET scanners: a Monte Carlo evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49(19):4593-610. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/19/010. View

18.

Muehllehner G, Karp J . Positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(13):R117-37. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R08. View

19.

Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner M, Perkins A, Kolthammer J, Karp J . Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(3):471-80. View