4.0 Article

Evaluation of lesion detectability in positron emission tomography when using a convergent penalized likelihood image reconstruction method

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.011002

Keywords

positron emission tomography imaging; lesion detection; penalized likelihood; maximum likelihood; model observers

Funding

  1. NIH [R01CA160253, U01CA148131]
  2. GE Healthcare
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U01CA148131] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have previously developed a convergent penalized likelihood (PL) image reconstruction algorithm using the relative difference prior (RDP) and showed that it achieves more accurate lesion quantitation compared to ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM). We evaluated the detectability of low-contrast liver and lung lesions using the PL-RDP algorithm compared to OSEM. We performed a two-alternative forced choice study using a channelized Hotelling observer model that was previously validated against human observers. Lesion detectability showed a stronger dependence on lesion size for PL-RDP than OSEM. Lesion detectability was improved using time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction, with greater benefit for the liver compared to the lung and with increasing benefit for decreasing lesion size and contrast. PL detectability was statistically significantly higher than OSEM for 20 mm liver lesions when contrast was >= 0.5 (p < 0.05), and TOF PL detectability was statistically significantly higher than TOF OSEM for 15 and 20 mm liver lesions with contrast >= 0.5 and >= 0.25, respectively. For all other cases, there was no statistically significant difference between PL and OSEM (p > 0.05). For the range of studied lesion properties, lesion detectability using PL-RDP was equivalent or improved compared to using OSEM. (C) 2016 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available