Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Journal of imaging Ročník 9; číslo 3; s. 65
Hlavní autoři: Naghavi-Behzad, Mohammad, Vogsen, Marianne, Gerke, Oke, Dahlsgaard-Wallenius, Sara Elisabeth, Nissen, Henriette Juel, Jakobsen, Nick Møldrup, Braad, Poul-Erik, Vilstrup, Mie Holm, Deak, Paul, Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe, Andersen, Thomas Lund
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.03.2023
MDPI
Témata:
Algorithms
Analysis
Biopsy
Breast cancer
Care and treatment
Communication
Computed tomography
Development and progression
Diagnosis
Diagnostic systems
Disease
FDG-PET/CT
Fluorine isotopes
Health aspects
Image contrast
Image quality
Image reconstruction
Medical imaging
Metastasis
metastatic breast cancer
Nuclear medicine
Parameters
PET imaging
Physicians
Positron emission
Q.Clear
Quality standards
reconstruction algorithm
Scanners
Sharpness
Tomography
Denmark
United States > US
FDG-PET/CT
reconstruction algorithm
Q.Clear
metastatic breast cancer
ISSN:2313-433X, 2313-433X
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SULpeak (g/mL) and SUVmax (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness (p < 0.001) and contrast (p = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction (p < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SULpeak (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, p < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUVmax, and higher SULpeak, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:2313-433X
2313-433X
DOI:10.3390/jimaging9030065