Technical Note: Rod phantom analysis for comparison of PET detector sampling and reconstruction methods

Scott D. Wollenweber, Brad J. Kemp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This investigation aimed to develop a scanner quantification performance methodology and compare multiple metrics between two scanners under different imaging conditions. Most PET scanners are designed to work over a wide dynamic range of patient imaging conditions. Clinical constraints, however, often impact the realization of the entitlement performance for a particular scanner design. Using less injected dose and imaging for a shorter time are often key considerations, all while maintaining "acceptable" image quality and quantitative capability. Methods: A dual phantom measurement including resolution inserts was used to measure the effects of in-plane (x, y) and axial (z) system resolution between two PET/CT systems with different block detector crystal dimensions. One of the scanners had significantly thinner slices. Several quantitative measures, including feature contrast recovery, max/min value, and feature profile accuracy were derived from the resulting data and compared between the two scanners and multiple phantoms and alignments. Results: At the clinically relevant count levels used, the scanner with thinner slices had improved performance of approximately 2%, averaged over phantom alignments, measures, and reconstruction methods, for the head-sized phantom, mainly demonstrated with the rods aligned perpendicular to the scanner axis. That same scanner had a slightly decreased performance of -1% for the larger body-size phantom, mostly due to an apparent noise increase in the images. Most of the differences in the metrics between the two scanners were less than 10%. Conclusions: Using the proposed scanner performance methodology, it was shown that smaller detector elements and a larger number of image voxels require higher count density in order to demonstrate improved image quality and quantitation. In a body imaging scenario under typical clinical conditions, the potential advantages of the design must overcome increases in noise due to lower count density.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)6175-6185
Number of pages11
JournalMedical Physics
Volume43
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Noise
Body Size
Head

Keywords

  • image quality
  • positron emission tomography (PET)
  • quantification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Technical Note : Rod phantom analysis for comparison of PET detector sampling and reconstruction methods. / Wollenweber, Scott D.; Kemp, Brad J.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 43, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 6175-6185.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wollenweber, Scott D. ; Kemp, Brad J. / Technical Note : Rod phantom analysis for comparison of PET detector sampling and reconstruction methods. In: Medical Physics. 2016 ; Vol. 43, No. 11. pp. 6175-6185.
@article{1b2aa0d83a404f8fb81bc00d67c8c4f1,
title = "Technical Note: Rod phantom analysis for comparison of PET detector sampling and reconstruction methods",
abstract = "Purpose: This investigation aimed to develop a scanner quantification performance methodology and compare multiple metrics between two scanners under different imaging conditions. Most PET scanners are designed to work over a wide dynamic range of patient imaging conditions. Clinical constraints, however, often impact the realization of the entitlement performance for a particular scanner design. Using less injected dose and imaging for a shorter time are often key considerations, all while maintaining {"}acceptable{"} image quality and quantitative capability. Methods: A dual phantom measurement including resolution inserts was used to measure the effects of in-plane (x, y) and axial (z) system resolution between two PET/CT systems with different block detector crystal dimensions. One of the scanners had significantly thinner slices. Several quantitative measures, including feature contrast recovery, max/min value, and feature profile accuracy were derived from the resulting data and compared between the two scanners and multiple phantoms and alignments. Results: At the clinically relevant count levels used, the scanner with thinner slices had improved performance of approximately 2{\%}, averaged over phantom alignments, measures, and reconstruction methods, for the head-sized phantom, mainly demonstrated with the rods aligned perpendicular to the scanner axis. That same scanner had a slightly decreased performance of -1{\%} for the larger body-size phantom, mostly due to an apparent noise increase in the images. Most of the differences in the metrics between the two scanners were less than 10{\%}. Conclusions: Using the proposed scanner performance methodology, it was shown that smaller detector elements and a larger number of image voxels require higher count density in order to demonstrate improved image quality and quantitation. In a body imaging scenario under typical clinical conditions, the potential advantages of the design must overcome increases in noise due to lower count density.",
keywords = "image quality, positron emission tomography (PET), quantification",
author = "Wollenweber, {Scott D.} and Kemp, {Brad J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4964458",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "6175--6185",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Technical Note

T2 - Rod phantom analysis for comparison of PET detector sampling and reconstruction methods

AU - Wollenweber, Scott D.

AU - Kemp, Brad J.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose: This investigation aimed to develop a scanner quantification performance methodology and compare multiple metrics between two scanners under different imaging conditions. Most PET scanners are designed to work over a wide dynamic range of patient imaging conditions. Clinical constraints, however, often impact the realization of the entitlement performance for a particular scanner design. Using less injected dose and imaging for a shorter time are often key considerations, all while maintaining "acceptable" image quality and quantitative capability. Methods: A dual phantom measurement including resolution inserts was used to measure the effects of in-plane (x, y) and axial (z) system resolution between two PET/CT systems with different block detector crystal dimensions. One of the scanners had significantly thinner slices. Several quantitative measures, including feature contrast recovery, max/min value, and feature profile accuracy were derived from the resulting data and compared between the two scanners and multiple phantoms and alignments. Results: At the clinically relevant count levels used, the scanner with thinner slices had improved performance of approximately 2%, averaged over phantom alignments, measures, and reconstruction methods, for the head-sized phantom, mainly demonstrated with the rods aligned perpendicular to the scanner axis. That same scanner had a slightly decreased performance of -1% for the larger body-size phantom, mostly due to an apparent noise increase in the images. Most of the differences in the metrics between the two scanners were less than 10%. Conclusions: Using the proposed scanner performance methodology, it was shown that smaller detector elements and a larger number of image voxels require higher count density in order to demonstrate improved image quality and quantitation. In a body imaging scenario under typical clinical conditions, the potential advantages of the design must overcome increases in noise due to lower count density.

AB - Purpose: This investigation aimed to develop a scanner quantification performance methodology and compare multiple metrics between two scanners under different imaging conditions. Most PET scanners are designed to work over a wide dynamic range of patient imaging conditions. Clinical constraints, however, often impact the realization of the entitlement performance for a particular scanner design. Using less injected dose and imaging for a shorter time are often key considerations, all while maintaining "acceptable" image quality and quantitative capability. Methods: A dual phantom measurement including resolution inserts was used to measure the effects of in-plane (x, y) and axial (z) system resolution between two PET/CT systems with different block detector crystal dimensions. One of the scanners had significantly thinner slices. Several quantitative measures, including feature contrast recovery, max/min value, and feature profile accuracy were derived from the resulting data and compared between the two scanners and multiple phantoms and alignments. Results: At the clinically relevant count levels used, the scanner with thinner slices had improved performance of approximately 2%, averaged over phantom alignments, measures, and reconstruction methods, for the head-sized phantom, mainly demonstrated with the rods aligned perpendicular to the scanner axis. That same scanner had a slightly decreased performance of -1% for the larger body-size phantom, mostly due to an apparent noise increase in the images. Most of the differences in the metrics between the two scanners were less than 10%. Conclusions: Using the proposed scanner performance methodology, it was shown that smaller detector elements and a larger number of image voxels require higher count density in order to demonstrate improved image quality and quantitation. In a body imaging scenario under typical clinical conditions, the potential advantages of the design must overcome increases in noise due to lower count density.

KW - image quality

KW - positron emission tomography (PET)

KW - quantification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994631228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994631228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4964458

DO - 10.1118/1.4964458

M3 - Article

C2 - 27806605

AN - SCOPUS:84994631228

VL - 43

SP - 6175

EP - 6185

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 11

ER -