Evaluation of the spatial dependence of the point spread function in 2D PET image reconstruction using LOR-OSEM.
OBJECTIVE
The use of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging has proved beneficial in the staging and diagnosis of several cancer disease sites. Additional applications of PET imaging in treatment planning and the evaluation of treatment response are limited by the relatively low spatial resolution of PET images. Including point spread function (PSF) information in the system matrix (SM) of iterative reconstruction techniques has been shown to produce improved spatial resolution in PET images.


METHODS
In this study, the authors sampled the spatially variant PSF at over 6000 locations in the field of view for a General Electric Discovery ST PET/CT (General Electric Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) scanner in 2D acquisition mode. The authors developed PSF blurred SMs based on different combinations of the radial, depth, and azimuthal spatial dependencies to test the overall spatial dependence of the PSF on image quality. The PSF blurred SMs were included in a LOR-OSEM reconstruction algorithm and used for image reconstruction of geometric phantoms. The authors also examined the effect of sampling density on PSF characterization to design a more efficient sampling scheme.


RESULTS
The authors found that depth dependent change in the amplitude of the detector response was the most important factor affecting image quality. A SM created from a PSF that introduced r (perpendicular to the LOR), d (parallel to the LOR), or r and d dependent blurring across the radial lines of response led to visually identifiable improvements in spatial resolution and contrast in reconstructed images compared to images reconstructed with a purely geometric SM with no PSF blurring. Images reconstructed using a SM with r and d dependent blurring across the radial lines of response showed improved spatial resolution and contrast-noise ratios compared to images reconstructed with a SM that had only r dependent blurring. Additionally, the authors determined that the PSF could be adequately characterized with roughly 85% fewer samples through the use of a better optimized sampling scheme.


CONCLUSIONS
PET image reconstruction using a SM made from an accurately characterized PSF that accounts for r and d dependencies results in improved spatial resolution and contrast-noise relations, which may aid in lesion boundary detection for treatment planning or quantitative assessment of treatment response.
Wiant
D
D
Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157, USA. dwiant@wfubmc.edu
Gersh
J A
JA
Bennett
M
M
Bourland
J D
JD
D000465:Algorithms; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Nov 15;63(4):1016-23
15979817
Phys Med Biol. 1998 Apr;43(4):1001-13
9572523
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jun;48(2):119-42
15243408
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jun 21;54(12):3709-25
19478379
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;1(3):192-6
18238275
Med Phys. 2008 Nov;35(11):4955-66
19070229
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jun 1;47(3):551-60
10837935
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Nov 21;50(22):5339-55
16264257
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13(4):601-9
18218538
Nucl Med Commun. 2007 May;28(5):335-54
17414883
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002 Jul;29(7):922-7
12111133
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 May 1;62(1):70-5
15850904
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Jan;62(1):51-60
11830312
Head Neck. 2005 Jun;27(6):478-87
15772953
Phys Med Biol. 2008 May 21;53(10):2577-91
18441414
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991;10(4):513-22
18222856
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jun;79(3):245-8
16725221
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Jun 21;49(12):2577-98
15272675
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36 Suppl 1:S15-29
19104808
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Oct 21;49(20):4731-44
15566171
Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):405-22
16436809
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 May 1;59(1):78-86
15093902
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13(2):314-21
18218507
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Apr 21;48(8):979-94
12741496
Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3072-9
19673206
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006 Jul;25(7):907-21
16827491
J Nucl Med. 2001 May;42(5 Suppl):1S-93S
11483694
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 15;62(4):988-94
15989999
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Nov 7;53(21):5947-65
18836219
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006 Jul;25(7):828-37
16827484
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Dec;77(3):227-30
16300846
Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging. 2008 May 14;2008:1315-1318
19424456
J Nucl Med. 2009 Jan;50(1):88-99
19139187
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jan 7;54(1):R1-25
19060363
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Feb 1;64(2):435-48
16198064
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1988;7(1):2-12
18230448
Cancer Treat Rev. 2006 Jun;32(4):245-60
16563636
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 1;57(3):853-63
14529793