Evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) versus filtered back-projection for the assessment of myocardial glucose uptake and myocardial perfusion using dynamic PET

Søndergaard, Hanne Maare; Madsen, Mette; Boisen, Karin; Bøttcher, Morten; Schmitz, Ole; Nielsen, Thomas; Bøtker, Hans Erik; Hansen, Søren B.

doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0198-z

Cited by 27 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In every expectation maximization (EM) equivalent iteration, defined as the product of iterations multiplied by subsets (I · S), the EDV, ESV, and LVEF values were registered. After the analysis of these results, it was decided that another reconstruction with OSEM using the EM equivalent iteration values of 12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30, and 32 would be performed. Once more, all quantitative parameters were registered.…”

Section: Osem Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Duarte

Monteiro²,

Hakmaoui³

et al. 2012

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial method for investigating patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is the calculation of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). It is, consequently, imperative to precisely estimate the value of LVEF-a process that can be done with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Therefore, the present study aimed to establish and compare the estimation performance of the quantitative parameters of the reconstruction methods filtered backprojection (FBP) and ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM). Methods: A beating-heart phantom with known values of end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF was used. Quantitative gated SPECT/quantitative perfusion SPECT software was used to obtain these quantitative parameters in a semiautomatic mode. The Butterworth filter was used in FBP, with the cutoff frequencies between 0.2 and 0.8 cycles per pixel combined with the orders of 5, 10, 15, and 20. Sixty-three reconstructions were performed using 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 OSEM subsets, combined with several iterations: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 32, and 64. Results: With FBP, the values of end-diastolic, end-systolic, and the stroke volumes rise as the cutoff frequency increases, whereas the value of LVEF diminishes. This same pattern is verified with the OSEM reconstruction. However, with OSEM there is a more precise estimation of the quantitative parameters, especially with the combinations 2 iterations · 10 subsets and 2 iterations · 12 subsets. Conclusion: The OSEM reconstruction presents better estimations of the quantitative parameters than does FBP. This study recommends the use of 2 iterations with 10 or 12 subsets for OSEM and a cutoff frequency of 0.5 cycles per pixel with the orders 5, 10, or 15 for FBP as the best estimations for the left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction quantification in myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.

show abstract

Section: Osem Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reconstruction of gated SPECT data is mostly made by algorithms of filtered backprojection (FBP) (14)(15)(16)(17)(18). This method is fast, linear, and robust and produces reliable results (19).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Duarte

Monteiro²,

Hakmaoui³

et al. 2012

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 It has been demonstrated for cardiac dynamic applications that iterative techniques also yield improved image accuracy and less noise compared with FBP. 11 The overall image appearance is of great importance for dynamic blood flow quantification because it will allow better delineation of the myocardial border and better detection of potential patient motion. The improved image quality will enable more reliable placement of the regions of interest for the blood and myocardium, and reduced reliance on manual contour adjustments and corrections.…”

Section: Why Iterative Reconstruction Methods?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to reconstruct dynamic cardiac PET data?

Slomka

Alessio

Germano

2017

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Filtered back projection (FBP) used to be the algorithm of choice for PET image reconstruction. However, iterative reconstruction algorithms such as ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) [4] have replaced FBP because they handle Poisson noise in the sinogram data more optimally, which improves the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and eliminates streaky artifacts [5]. On the other hand, a higher injected activity is known to correlate with lower levels of noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual and Quantitative Assessment of a New Anisotropic Diffusion Filter (Statistical Transfer with Optimizing Noise and Edge Sensing) for Positron Emission Tomography

Iizuka¹,

Kaneta²,

Ogawa³

et al. 2017

J Mol Imaging Dynam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-filtering with a Gaussian filter is commonly used to reduce noise in positron emission tomography (PET) images. However, its non-selective smoothing obscures the edges of lesions or organs. We compared the performance of a newly developed anisotropic diffusion filter called "Statistical Transfer with Optimizing Noise and Edge Sensing" (STONES) with that of the Gaussian filter for small lesions on PET images. We selected seven PET/ computed tomography (CT) image slices of the lungs from three patients with multiple lung metastases. For each slice, the lesion detection rates by two physicians (A and B) were compared for Gaussian-and STONES-filtered PET images. The maximum standardized uptake (SUV max ) values of the detected lesions were also compared for non-, Gaussian-, and STONES-filtered images. Physician A detected 19 lesions in the Gaussian-filtered images and 23 lesions in the STONES-filtered images, while Physician B detected 14 lesions in the Gaussian-filtered images and 19 lesions in the STONES-filtered images. SUV max for the STONES-filtered images was significantly higher and closer to that of the non-filtered images compared to those for the Gaussian-filtered images. STONES improved the detection rate and increased SUV max in comparison with Gaussian filter. Thus, it should be more advantageous for the detection of small lesions with PET.

show abstract

Evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) versus filtered back-projection for the assessment of myocardial glucose uptake and myocardial perfusion using dynamic PET

Cited by 27 publications

References 13 publications

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

Influence of Reconstruction Parameters During Filtered Backprojection and Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization in the Measurement of the Left-Ventricular Volumes and Function During Gated SPECT

How to reconstruct dynamic cardiac PET data?

Visual and Quantitative Assessment of a New Anisotropic Diffusion Filter (Statistical Transfer with Optimizing Noise and Edge Sensing) for Positron Emission Tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About