How to reconstruct dynamic cardiac PET data?

Slomka, Piotr J.; Alessio, Adam M.; Germano, Guido

doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0608-y

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the quantification of MBF and MFR in 82 Rb PET images might also be affected by reconstruction type (iterative or analytical). Cardiac PET image reconstruction can be achieved by both filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction algorithms [ 26 ]. The filtered back projection (FBP) method is fast, linear, and robust and often still is the preferred reconstruction method for dynamic PET studies consisting of many frames with short scan durations and thus poor statistics [ 27 – 29 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cardiac PET/CT with Rb-82: optimization of image acquisition and reconstruction parameters

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOur aim was to characterize the influence of time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) recovery corrections, as well as ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction parameters, in 82Rb PET/CT quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR).Rest and stress list-mode dynamic 82Rb PET acquisition data from 10 patients without myocardial flow defects and 10 patients with myocardial blood flow defects were reconstructed retrospectively. OSEM reconstructions were performed with Gaussian filters of 4, 6, and 8 mm, different iterations, and subset numbers (2 × 24; 2 × 16; 3 × 16; 4 × 16). Rest and stress global, regional, and segmental MBF and MFR were computed from time activity curves with FlowQuant© software. Left ventricular segmentation using the 17-segment American Heart Association model was obtained.ResultsWhole left ventricle (LV) MBF at rest and stress were 0.97 ± 0.30 and 2.30 ± 1.00 mL/min/g, respectively, and MFR was 2.40 ± 1.13. Concordance was excellent and all reconstruction parameters had no significant impact on MBF, except for the exclusion of TOF which led to significantly decreased concordance in rest and stress MBF in patients with or without perfusion defects on a coronary artery basis and in MFR in patients with perfusion defects.ConclusionsChanges in reconstruction parameters in perfusion 82Rb PET/CT studies influence quantitative MBF analysis. The inclusion of TOF information in the tomographic reconstructions had significant impact in MBF quantification.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%