Top

Published in:

Open Access 26-05-2022 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

Brain partial volume correction with point spreading function reconstruction in high-resolution digital PET: comparison with an MR-based method in FDG imaging

Authors: Masanobu Ibaraki, Keisuke Matsubara, Yuki Shinohara, Miho Shidahara, Kaoru Sato, Hiroyuki Yamamoto, Toshibumi Kinoshita

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 8/2022

Abstract

Objective

In quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) of the brain, partial volume effect due mainly to the finite spatial resolution of the PET scanner (> 3 mm full width at half maximum [FWHM]) is a primary source of error in the measurement of tracer uptake, especially in small structures such as the cerebral cortex (typically < 3 mm thickness). The aim of this study was to evaluate the partial volume correction (PVC) performance of point spread function-incorporated reconstruction (PSF reconstruction) in combination with the latest digital PET scanner. This evaluation was performed through direct comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging (MR)-based PVC (used as a reference method) in a human brain study.

Methods

Ten healthy subjects underwent brain ¹⁸F-FDG PET (30-min acquisition) on a digital PET/CT system (Siemens Biograph Vision, 3.5-mm FWHM scanner resolution at the center of the field of view) and anatomical T1-weighted MR imaging for MR-based PVC. PSF reconstruction was applied with a wide range of iterations (4 to 256; 5 subsets). FDG uptake in the cerebral cortex was evaluated using the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and compared between PSF reconstruction and MR-based PVC.

Results

Cortical structures were visualized by PSF reconstruction with several tens of iterations and were anatomically well matched with the MR-derived cortical segments. Higher numbers of iterations resulted in higher cortical SUVRs, which approached those of MR-based PVC (1.76), although even with the maximum number of iterations they were still smaller by 16% (1.47), corresponding to approximately 1.5-mm FWHM of the effective spatial resolution.

Conclusion

With the latest digital PET scanner, PSF reconstruction can be used as a PVC technique in brain PET, albeit with suboptimal resolution recovery. A relative advantage of PSF reconstruction is that it can be applied not only to cerebral cortical regions, but also to various small structures such as small brain nuclei that are hardly visualized on anatomical T1-weighted imaging, and thus hardly recovered by MR-based PVC.

Available only for authorised users

Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979;3(3):299–308.CrossRef

Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.035774.CrossRefPubMed

Fischl B, Dale AM. Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(20):11050–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.200033797.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hsu DFC, Ilan E, Peterson WT, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin CS. Studies of a next-generation silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(9):1511–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.189514.CrossRefPubMed

van Sluis J, de Jong J, Schaar J, Noordzij W, van Snick P, Dierckx R, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(7):1031–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215418.CrossRefPubMed

Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance evaluation of the vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(4):561–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215541.CrossRefPubMed

Catana C. Development of dedicated brain PET imaging devices: recent advances and future perspectives. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(8):1044–52. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.217901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rousset O, Rahmim A, Alavi A, Zaidi H. Partial volume correction strategies in PET. PET Clin. 2007;2(2):235–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2007.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius PH, Thomas BA, Hutton BF. A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(21):R119–59. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/R119.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Erlandsson K, Dickson J, Arridge S, Atkinson D, Ourselin S, Hutton BF. MR imaging-guided partial volume correction of PET data in PET/MR imaging. PET Clin. 2016;11(2):161–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2015.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Rousset OG, Ma Y, Evans AC. Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(5):904–11.PubMed

12.

Thomas BA, Erlandsson K, Modat M, Thurfjell L, Vandenberghe R, Ourselin S, et al. The importance of appropriate partial volume correction for PET quantification in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1104–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1745-9.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hutton BF, Thomas BA, Erlandsson K, Bousse A, Reilhac-Laborde A, Kazantsev D, et al. What approach to brain partial volume correction is best for PET/MRI? Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A. 2013;702:29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2012.07.059.CrossRef

14.

Shidahara M, Thomas BA, Okamura N, Ibaraki M, Matsubara K, Oyama S, et al. A comparison of five partial volume correction methods for Tau and amyloid PET imaging with [18F]THK5351 and [11C]PIB. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31(7):563–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1185-0.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Greve DN, Salat DH, Bowen SL, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Schultz AP, Catana C, et al. Different partial volume correction methods lead to different conclusions: an (18)F-FDG-PET study of aging. Neuroimage. 2016;132:334–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.042.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schwarz CG, Gunter JL, Lowe VJ, Weigand S, Vemuri P, Senjem ML, et al. A comparison of partial volume correction techniques for measuring change in serial amyloid PET SUVR. J Alzheimer’s Dis: JAD. 2019;67(1):181–95. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-180749.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Norgaard M, Ganz M, Svarer C, Frokjaer VG, Greve DN, Strother SC, et al. Different preprocessing strategies lead to different conclusions: A [(11)C]DASB-PET reproducibility study. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020;40(9):1902–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X19880450.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25(7):907–21.CrossRef

19.

Sureau FC, Reader AJ, Comtat C, Leroy C, Ribeiro MJ, Buvat I, et al. Impact of image-space resolution modeling for studies with the high-resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(6):1000–8.CrossRef

20.

Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(3):938–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2010.2040188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(5):1453–73. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Casey ME, Osborne DR. Siemens biograph vision 600. In: Zhang J, Knopp MV, editors. Advances in PET. Springer; 2020. p. 71–91.CrossRef

23.

Surti S, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Conti M, Casey ME, Karp JS. Benefit of improved performance with state-of-the art digital PET/CT for lesion detection in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(11):1684–90. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.242305.CrossRefPubMed

24.

van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, van Snick PH, Borra RJH, Dierckx R, et al. Image quality and semiquantitative measurements on the biograph vision PET/CT system: initial experiences and comparison with the biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):129–35. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227801.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Fischl B. FreeSurfer. Neuroimage. 2012;62(2):774–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Matsubara K, Ibaraki M, Shidahara M, Kinoshita T. Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging I. Iterative framework for image registration and partial volume correction in brain positron emission tomography. Radiol Phys Technol. 2020;13(4):348–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-020-00591-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Sattarivand M, Kusano M, Poon I, Caldwell C. Symmetric geometric transfer matrix partial volume correction for PET imaging: principle, validation and robustness. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(21):7101–16. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/7101.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Thomas BA, Cuplov V, Bousse A, Mendes A, Thielemans K, Hutton BF, et al. PETPVC: a toolbox for performing partial volume correction techniques in positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(22):7975–93. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/22/7975.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Oyama S, Hosoi A, Ibaraki M, McGinnity CJ, Matsubara K, Watanuki S, et al. Error propagation analysis of seven partial volume correction algorithms for [(18)F]THK-5351 brain PET imaging. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00324-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Hofheinz F, Dittrich S, Potzsch C, Hoff J. Effects of cold sphere walls in PET phantom measurements on the volume reproducing threshold. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(4):1099–113. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/4/013.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Nuyts J. Unconstrained image reconstruction with resolution modelling does not have a unique solution. EJNMMI physics. 2014;1(1):1–7.CrossRef

32.

Olesen OV, Sibomana M, Keller SH, Andersen F, Jensen J, Holm S, et al. Spatial resolution of the HRRT PET scanner using 3D-OSEM PSF reconstruction. 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC): IEEE; 2009. p. 3789–90.

33.

Alessio AM, Rahmim A, Orton CG. Point/counterpoint. Resolution modeling enhances PET imaging. Med Phys. 2013;40(12):120601. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4821088.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40(6): 064301. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4800806.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Munk OL, Tolbod LP, Hansen SB, Bogsrud TV. Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-016-0169-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Aide N, Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Armstrong IS, Walker MD, McGowan DR. Advances in PET-CT technology: an update. Semin Nucl Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Heiss W-D, Habedank B, Klein JC, Herholz K, Wienhard K, Lenox M, et al. Metabolic rates in small brain nuclei determined by high-resolution PET. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(11):1811–5.PubMed

38.

Hirata K, Hattori N, Takeuchi W, Shiga T, Morimoto Y, Umegaki K, et al. Metabolic activity of red nucleus and its correlation with cerebral cortex and cerebellum: a study using a high-resolution semiconductor PET system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1206–11. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.152504.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Speck I, Arndt S, Thurow J, Blazhenets G, Aschendorff A, Meyer PT, et al. (18)F-FDG PET imaging of the inferior colliculus in asymmetric hearing loss. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(3):418–22. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.231407.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Brain partial volume correction with point spreading function reconstruction in high-resolution digital PET: comparison with an MR-based method in FDG imaging
Authors: Masanobu Ibaraki
Keisuke Matsubara
Yuki Shinohara
Miho Shidahara
Kaoru Sato
Hiroyuki Yamamoto
Toshibumi Kinoshita
Publication date: 26-05-2022
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Keyword: Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 8/2022
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01753-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Brain partial volume correction with point spreading function reconstruction in high-resolution digital PET: comparison with an MR-based method in FDG imaging

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2022

Physiological background parenchymal uptake of 18F-FDG in normal breast tissues using dedicated breast PET: correlation with mammographic breast composition, menopausal status, and menstrual cycle

Age-related increase of monoamine oxidase B in amyloid-negative cognitively unimpaired elderly subjects

Diagnosis of Parkinson syndrome and Lewy-body disease using 123I-ioflupane images and a model with image features based on machine learning

Manual on the proper use of meta-[211At] astato-benzylguanidine ([211At] MABG) injections in clinical trials for targeted alpha therapy (1st edition)

Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study

Shine-through artifact due to high-radioactivity bladder and bowel gas in 18F-FDG PET/CT: impact of time-of-flight algorithm and radioactivity concentration of urine in the bladder on the occurrence of the artifacts