Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 11/2022

Open Access 04-05-2022 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

Deep learning–based time-of-flight (ToF) image enhancement of non-ToF PET scans

Authors: Abolfazl Mehranian, Scott D. Wollenweber, Matthew D. Walker, Kevin M. Bradley, Patrick A. Fielding, Martin Huellner, Fotis Kotasidis, Kuan-Hao Su, Robert Johnsen, Floris P. Jansen, Daniel R. McGowan

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 11/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To improve the quantitative accuracy and diagnostic confidence of PET images reconstructed without time-of-flight (ToF) using deep learning models trained for ToF image enhancement (DL-ToF).

Methods

A total of 273 [18F]-FDG PET scans were used, including data from 6 centres equipped with GE Discovery MI ToF scanners. PET data were reconstructed using the block-sequential-regularised-expectation–maximisation (BSREM) algorithm with and without ToF. The images were then split into training (n = 208), validation (n = 15), and testing (n = 50) sets. Three DL-ToF models were trained to transform non-ToF BSREM images to their target ToF images with different levels of DL-ToF strength (low, medium, high). The models were objectively evaluated using the testing set based on standardised uptake value (SUV) in 139 identified lesions, and in normal regions of liver and lungs. Three radiologists subjectively rated the models using testing sets based on lesion detectability, diagnostic confidence, and image noise/quality.

Results

The non-ToF, DL-ToF low, medium, and high methods resulted in − 28 ± 18, − 28 ± 19, − 8 ± 22, and 1.7 ± 24% differences (mean; SD) in the SUVmax for the lesions in testing set, compared to ToF-BSREM image. In background lung VOIs, the SUVmean differences were 7 ± 15, 0.6 ± 12, 1 ± 13, and 1 ± 11% respectively. In normal liver, SUVmean differences were 4 ± 5, 0.7 ± 4, 0.8 ± 4, and 0.1 ± 4%. Visual inspection showed that our DL-ToF improved feature sharpness and convergence towards ToF reconstruction. Blinded clinical readings of testing sets for diagnostic confidence (scale 0–5) showed that non-ToF, DL-ToF low, medium, and high, and ToF images scored 3.0, 3.0, 4.1, 3.8, and 3.5 respectively. For this set of images, DL-ToF medium therefore scored highest for diagnostic confidence.

Conclusion

Deep learning–based image enhancement models may provide converged ToF-equivalent image quality without ToF reconstruction. In clinical scoring DL-ToF-enhanced non-ToF images (medium and high) on average scored as high as, or higher than, ToF images. The model is generalisable and hence, could be applied to non-ToF images from BGO-based PET/CT scanners.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schaart DR. Physics and technology of time-of-flight PET detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(9):09TR01.CrossRef Schaart DR. Physics and technology of time-of-flight PET detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(9):09TR01.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Surti S, Karp JS. Update on latest advances in time-of-flight PET. Phys Med. 2020;80:251–8.CrossRef Surti S, Karp JS. Update on latest advances in time-of-flight PET. Phys Med. 2020;80:251–8.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference El Fakhri G, et al. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(3):347–53.CrossRef El Fakhri G, et al. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(3):347–53.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schaefferkoetter J, et al. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(5):1465–78.CrossRef Schaefferkoetter J, et al. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(5):1465–78.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Conti M. Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(1):155–68.CrossRef Conti M. Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(1):155–68.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(4):635–41.CrossRef Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(4):635–41.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Teoh EJ, et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1447–52.CrossRef Teoh EJ, et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1447–52.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Teoh EJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of histopathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a penalised likelihood reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):4098–106.CrossRef Teoh EJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of histopathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a penalised likelihood reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):4098–106.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Arabi H, et al. The promise of artificial intelligence and deep learning in PET and SPECT imaging. Physica Med. 2021;83:122–37.CrossRef Arabi H, et al. The promise of artificial intelligence and deep learning in PET and SPECT imaging. Physica Med. 2021;83:122–37.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gong K, et al. Machine learning in PET: from photon detection to quantitative image reconstruction. Proc IEEE. 2020;108(1):51–68.CrossRef Gong K, et al. Machine learning in PET: from photon detection to quantitative image reconstruction. Proc IEEE. 2020;108(1):51–68.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Reader AJ, et al. Deep learning for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2021;5(1):1–25.CrossRef Reader AJ, et al. Deep learning for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2021;5(1):1–25.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lu W, et al. An investigation of quantitative accuracy for deep learning based denoising in oncological PET. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(16):165019.CrossRef Lu W, et al. An investigation of quantitative accuracy for deep learning based denoising in oncological PET. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(16):165019.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Mehranian A, et al. Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):539–49.CrossRef Mehranian A, et al. Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):539–49.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Cheng L et al. Accelerated iterative image reconstruction using a deep learning based leapfrogging strategy. Int Conf Fully Three-Dimensional Image Reconstr Radiol Nucl Med. 2017; 715–720. Cheng L et al. Accelerated iterative image reconstruction using a deep learning based leapfrogging strategy. Int Conf Fully Three-Dimensional Image Reconstr Radiol Nucl Med. 2017; 715–720.
16.
go back to reference Berg E, Cherry SR. Using convolutional neural networks to estimate time-of-flight from PET detector waveforms. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(2):02LT01.CrossRef Berg E, Cherry SR. Using convolutional neural networks to estimate time-of-flight from PET detector waveforms. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(2):02LT01.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Karp JS, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):462–70.CrossRef Karp JS, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):462–70.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147–57.CrossRef Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147–57.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Chilcott AK, Bradley KM, McGowan DR. Effect of a Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction compared with ordered subset expectation maximization on clinical image quality over a wide range of patient weights. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(1):153–7.CrossRef Chilcott AK, Bradley KM, McGowan DR. Effect of a Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction compared with ordered subset expectation maximization on clinical image quality over a wide range of patient weights. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(1):153–7.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference McGraw K, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46.CrossRef McGraw K, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Deep learning–based time-of-flight (ToF) image enhancement of non-ToF PET scans
Authors
Abolfazl Mehranian
Scott D. Wollenweber
Matthew D. Walker
Kevin M. Bradley
Patrick A. Fielding
Martin Huellner
Fotis Kotasidis
Kuan-Hao Su
Robert Johnsen
Floris P. Jansen
Daniel R. McGowan
Publication date
04-05-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 11/2022
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05824-7

Other articles of this Issue 11/2022

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 11/2022 Go to the issue