BSREM重建算法优化<sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET采集时间的可行性

doi:10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2022.02.017

中国辐射卫生

2022, Vol. 31

Issue (2): 224-228 DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2022.02.017

论著

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

BSREM重建算法优化¹⁸F-FDG PET采集时间的可行性

张廷杰¹, 陈炜¹, 卢洪辉¹, 刘明¹, 谢万明¹, 梁颖^1,2

1. 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院深圳医院核医学科，广东深圳 518116;
2. 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院核医学科，北京 100021

Feasibility of optimizing acquisition time of ¹⁸F-FDG PET with BSREM reconstruction algorithm

ZHANG Tingjie¹, CHEN Wei¹, LU Honghui¹, LIU Ming¹, XIE Wanming¹, LIANG Ying^1,2

1. National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen 518116 China;
2. National Cancer Center/ National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021 China

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (533 KB) HTML ( )
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的比较不同采集时间下分块顺序正则化期望最大化（BSREM）算法较有序子集期望最大化（OSEM）算法对¹⁸F-FDG PET图像质量的影响，探讨其优化采集时间的可行性。方法模体实验采用NEMA/IEC PET 模体，临床研究中连续收集2020年3—9月因肺结节行¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT检查患者61例（66个高摄取肺结节）。模体实验和临床研究均以不同采集时间按BSREM和OSEM算法重建PET图像。比较上述序列的变异系数（CV）、信噪比（SNR）、对比噪声比（CNR）、活度测量值（模体实验为摄取值UV；临床研究为标准摄取值SUV）差异。结果模体实验显示120 s BSREM序列图像质量优于120 s OSEM序列，75 s BSREM序列与120 s OSEM序列相仿。临床研究显示120 s BSREM序列图像质量优于120 s OSEM序列，且75 s BSREM序列较120 s OSEM序列略优。结论 PET模体实验和肺部高摄取结节临床研究中，应用BSREM算法较OSEM算法明显改善图像质量，75 s BSREM序列图像质量较120 s OSEM序列略优。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	张廷杰
	陈炜
	卢洪辉
	刘明
	谢万明
	梁颖

关键词 ： PET-CT, 采集时间, 重建算法, 图像质量, 定量分析, 放射防护

收稿日期: 2021-10-17

R817

通讯作者: 梁颖，E-mail：liangy_2000@sina.com E-mail: liangy_2000@sina.com

作者简介: 张廷杰（1991—），男，广东深圳人，医师，从事核医学及分子影像工作。E-mail：zhang.tj@139.com

引用本文:

张廷杰, 陈炜, 卢洪辉, 刘明, 谢万明, 梁颖. BSREM重建算法优化¹⁸F-FDG PET采集时间的可行性[J]. 中国辐射卫生, 2022, 31(2): 224-228.
ZHANG Tingjie, CHEN Wei, LU Honghui, LIU Ming, XIE Wanming, LIANG Ying. Feasibility of optimizing acquisition time of ¹⁸F-FDG PET with BSREM reconstruction algorithm. , 2022, 31(2): 224-228.

链接本文:

http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2022.02.017 或 http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/Y2022/V31/I2/224

[1] Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system[J]. J Nucl Med, 2015, 56(9): 1447-1452. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301
[2] Lantos J, Iagaru A, Levin C. Standard OSEM vs. Q. Clear PET image reconstruction: an analysis of phantom data[J]. J Nucl Med, 2015, 56(S3): 264
[3] De Bernardi E, Fallanca F, Gianolli L, et al. Reconstruction of uptake patterns in PET: the influence of regularizing prior[J]. Med Phys, 2017, 44(5): 1823-1836. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12205
[4] Brown C, Dempsey MF, Gillen G, et al. Investigation of ¹⁸F-FDG 3D mode PET image quality versus acquisition time[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2010, 31(3): 254-259. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283355c5d
[5] 陈香, 赵军, 管一晖, 等. PET/CT图像采集时间对图像质量和病灶检出率的影响[J]. 中华核医学杂志,2007,27(1):43-45. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2007.01.015
Chen X, Zhao J, Guan YH, et al. The influence of acquisition time on PET/CT imaging quality and lesion detectability[J]. Chin J Nucl Med, 2007, 27(1): 43-45. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2007.01.015
[6] National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs（PET）[R]. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008.
[7] Pan T, Einstein SA, Kappadath SC, et al. Performance evaluation of the 5-Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2012 Standard[J]. Med Phys, 2019, 46(7): 3025-3033. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13576
[8] 徐磊, 孟庆乐, 杨瑞, 等. 每床位采集时间对¹⁸F-FDG PET图像质量和SUV值的影响[J]. 中国医疗设备,2018,33(11):28-32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1633.2018.11.008
Xu L, Meng QL, Yang R, et al. Effects of acquisition time per bed on the quality of¹⁸F-PDG PET images and SUV values[J]. China Med Dev, 2018, 33(11): 28-32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1633.2018.11.008
[9] 张书文, 陈英茂, 田嘉禾, 等. OSEM子集及迭代次数对PET图像质量的影响[J]. 中国医学影像学杂志,2003,11(3):199-201. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2003.03.016
Zhang SW, Chen YM, Tian JH, et al. The effects of the subsets and iterative times in reconstruction of OSEM on PET image quality[J]. Chin J Med Imaging, 2003, 11(3): 199-201. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2003.03.016
[10] Goethals I, D’Asseler Y, Dobbeleir A, et al. The effect of acquisition time on visual and semi-quantitative analysis of F-18 FDG-PET studies in patients with head and neck cancer[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2010, 31(3): 227-231. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328334fbfd
[11] Ross S. Q. Clear[EB/OL]. [2019-07-01].https://www.gehealthcare.com/-/media/739d885baa59485aaef5ac0e0eeb44a4.pdf.
[12] Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, et al. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26(2): 576-584. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3832-y
[13] Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Schuster DM, et al. Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction(Q. Clear)of ¹⁸F-fluciclovine PET for imaging of recurrent prostate cancer: semi-quantitative and clinical evaluation[J]. Br J Radiol, 2018, 91(1085): 20170727. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170727
[14] Bjöersdorff M, Oddstig J, Karindotter-Borgendahl N, et al. Impact of penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for ¹⁸F-fluorocholine PET-CT regarding image quality and interpretation[J]. EJNMMI Phys, 2019, 6(1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-019-0242-2
[15] Otani T, Hosono M, Kanagaki M, et al. Evaluation and optimization of a New PET reconstruction algorithm, Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction, for lung cancer assessment according to lesion size[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2019, 213(2): W50-W56. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20478
[16] Ptáček J, Karhan P, Fiala P. Optimal reconstruction matrix and PET image filtration for point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction-A phantom study[J]. Phys Med, 2017, 39: 95-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.002
[17] Rogasch JMM, Albers J, Steinkrüger FL, et al. Point spread function reconstruction for integrated 18F-FET PET/MRI in patients with glioma: does it affect SUVs and respective tumor-to-background ratios[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2019, 44(4): e280-e285. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002423
[18] Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Nishida H, et al. Influence of statistical fluctuation on reproducibility and accuracy of SUV_max and SUV_peak: a phantom study[J]. J Nucl Med Technol, 2015, 43(3): 222-226. DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.115.161745
[19] Chicheportiche A, Goshen E, Godefroy J, et al. Can a penalized-likelihood estimation algorithm be used to reduce the injected dose or the acquisition time in ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT studies[J]. EJNMMI Phys, 2021, 8(1): 13. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-021-00359-6
[20] 陆强, 张秋玲, 洪秀娟. 我国放射工作人员职业健康监护探讨[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2020,29(5):465-469. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2020.05.005
Lu Q, Zhang QL, Hong XJ. Discussion on occupational health surveillance of radiation workers in China[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2020, 29(5): 465-469. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2020.05.005
[21] 刘伟, 何星. PET-CT诊断项目工作人员受照剂量及相关场所辐射水平测量与分析[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2019,28(3):278-281. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2019.03.016
Liu W, He X. Measurement and analysis of radiation dose for staff and radiation level in related places in PET-CT diagnostic project[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2019, 28(3): 278-281. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2019.03.016
[22] 马纪英, 杨学琴. 2020年深圳市医疗机构放射工作人员职业健康检查目标疾病检出情况分析[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2021,30(5):537-541. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.05.002
Ma JY, Yang XQ. Analysis of occupational health examination results of radiation workers in medical institutions of Shenzhen in 2020[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2021, 30(5): 537-541. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.05.002