Quantification of the impact of TOF and PSF on PET images using the noise matching concept: Clinical and phantom study

Quantification of the impact of TOF and PSF on PET images using the noise matching concept: Clinical and phantom study 1 2 first-author 3 4 corresp Corresponding Author: Pardis Ghafarian, PhD, Email:pardis.ghafarian@sbmu.ac.ir Corresponding Author: Pardis Ghafarian, PhD, Email:pardis.ghafarian@sbmu.ac.ir pardis.ghafarian@sbmu.ac.ir 1 2 1 2 Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. PET/CT and Cyclotron Center, Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. PET/CT and Cyclotron Center, Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. This study was to assess quantitatively the accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT images reconstructed by TOF+PSF and TOF only, considering the noise matching concept to minimize probable bias in evaluating algorithm performance caused by noise. PET images of similar noise level were considered. Measurements were made on an in-house phantom with hot inserts of Φ 10–37 mm, and oncological images of 14 patients were analyzed. The PET images were reconstructed using the OSEM, OSEM+TOF and OSEM+TOF+PSF algorithms. Optimal reconstruction parameters including iteration, subset, and FWHM of post-smoothing filter were chosen for both the phantom and patient data. In terms of quantitative accuracy, the recovery coefficient (RC) was calculated for the phantom PET images. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), lesion-to-background ratio (LBR) and SUV max were evaluated from the phantom and clinical data. The smallest hot insert ( Φ 10 mm) with 2:1 activity concentration ratio could be detected in the PET image reconstructed using the TOF and TOF+PSF algorithms, but not the OSEM algorithm. The relative difference for SNR between the TOF+PSF and OSEM showed significantly higher values for smaller sizes, while SNR change was smaller for Φ 22–37 mm inserts both 2:1 and 4:1 activity concentration ratio. In the clinical study, SNR gains were 1.6±0.53 and 2.7±0.74 for the TOF and TOF+PSF, while the relative difference of contrast was 17%±1.05% and 41.5%±1.85 % for the TOF only and TOF+PSF, respectively. The impact of TOF+PSF is more significant than that of TOF reconstruction, in smaller inserts with low activity concentration ratio. In the clinical PET/CT images, the use of the TOF+PSF algorithm resulted in better SNR and contrast for lesions, and the highest SUV max was also seen for images reconstructed with the TOF+PSF algorithm. Time of Flight (TOF) Point Spread Function (PSF) lesion detectability PET quantification image reconstruction SUV 1 Introduction 1 PET/CT imaging using 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is widely used in oncology for diagnosis, staging, restaging of disease and patient management. Image quality of FDG-PET is important for accurate cancer diagnosis and assessing response to therapy [ 1 1 - 3 3 1-3 ]. PET/CT images can be assessed quantitatively by the use of parameters of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and lesion-to-background ratio (LBR), and semi-quantitative parameters of recovery coefficient and standard uptake value [ 4 4 ]. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) is commonly used in clinical studies to evaluate malignant lesions [ 5 5 ]. Studies show that reconstruction parameters can affect significantly the quantitative analysis [ 6 6 - 9 9 6-9 ]. Due to advent of new fast scintillators, electronic improvements, emergence of cheaper computing power, and the reconstruction methods, today time of flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) are implemented in clinical PET image reconstruction, with improved image quality [ 10 10 - 16 16 10-16 ]. PSF improves the spatial resolution, minimizes the partial volume effect, and increases SNR in PET images [ 11 11 , 17 17 ]. Lesion detectability and SNR can be increased by incorporating the TOF method [ 18 18 - 23 23 18-23 ]. Further improvement in PET/CT image quality can be made by combining the TOF and PSF algorithms in the reconstruction process [ 6 6 , 19 19 , 24 24 - 28 28 24-28 ]. Using PSF+TOF algorithm, lesion detectability and SUV of lymph nodes can be better shown than using conventional OSEM (ordered subset expectation-maximization) algorithm in PET/CT images [ 29 29 , 30 30 ]. Recently, Prieto et al demonstrated that incorporation of the PSF with TOF was an optimal method for quantification of small lesion [ 29 29 ]. Accurate quantitative analysis is essential for therapy monitoring. On basis of our previous study and the noise matching concept, the TOF and TOF+PSF are compared with the OSEM algorithm using a phantom with hot inserts of Φ 10–37 mm and activity concentration ratios of 2:1 and 4:1 [ 16 16 , 31 31 ]. Clinical PET/CT images were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. 2 Experimental section 1 2.1. Phantom study 2 PET/CT images were evaluated by a phantom created in-house, having six fillable cylindrical inserts in diameters of 10, 13, 17, 22, 28, and 37 mm, and a lung insert, placed in a body compartment. The body compartment is similar to NEMA image quality phantom, with the same shape and dimensions. The body phantom was filled with an 18 F-FDG solution of 5.3 kBq/mL activity concentration that was equivalent to liver uptake of a 70 kg patient received 370 MBq intravenous 18 F-FDG [ 32 32 ]. All inserts were filled with 2:1 and 4:1 activity concentration ratios, to compare with background activity concentration of 18 F-FDG solution separately. 2.2. Patient study 2 A retrospective analysis was made for 14 oncological patients (8 men and 6 women) who had undergone 18 F-FDG PET/CT examination. The clinical indications for the patients were the evaluation of lung cancer ( n =4), colon cancer ( n =3), breast cancer ( n =3), renal cell carcinoma ( n =2) and gastric cancer ( n =2). Patients with liver lesions or with a fasting blood sugar level higher than 150 mg/dL were excluded in our investigation. All patients fasted 6–8 h before the PET/CT examination. The patients weighed in average 78.5±3.8 kg (65–90 kg) and received an intravenous injection of 320.2±19.3 MBq of 18 F-FDG (279–406 MBq) according to EANM (European Association of Nuclear Medicine) guidelines [ 33 33 ]. The PET/CT scan was obtained 61.1 ± 1.7 minutes post injection. 2.3. Data acquisition and reconstruction parameters 2 In this study, we used a Discovery 690 VCT (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, USA) with lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) crystal combined with a 64-slice CT scanner. The PET scanner has a timing resolution of 555 ps with a 4.9 ns coincidence time window. It consists of 24 rings and a total of 13824 LYSO crystals, each being sized at 4.2 mm×6.2 mm×25 mm. The PET scanner covers 15.7 cm axial field of view and trans-axial field of view (FOV) is 70 cm in diameter. After performing a CT topogram, the CT images acquired using smart mA technique depending on body habitus from vertex to mid-thigh with tube voltage of 100–120 kVp (depending on patient size), pitch of 0.98:1, 1-second gantry rotation time, and 3.75 mm slice thickness. The PET images were acquired in list mode with 3 min per bed position. All images reconstructed with the OSEM (commercially termed as VUE.HD), OSEM+TOF (TOF, commercially VUE.FX), and OSEM+TOF+PSF (TOF+PSF, manufactured standard full name as Sharp-IR) algorithms, with image matrix of 256×256 (pixel size, 2.73 mm)[ 34 34 , 35 35 ]. Based on our previous study and the noise matching concept [ 27 27 , 31 31 ], reconstruction parameters were chosen for the clinical and phantom studies. In other words, reconstruction parameters of iteration, subset and FWHM of post-smoothing filter were chosen to achieve noise level (defined as coefficient of variance) lower than 10% for both phantom and clinical images. In the phantom study, reconstruction parameters were 2 iterations and 24 subsets for reconstructions with the TOF and TOF+PSF method and 3 iterations and 24 subsets for the OSEM method. Full width at half maximum (FWHM) of Gaussian filter were 6, 5.5 and 4 mm for the OSEM, TOF, and TOF+PSF algorithms, respectively. Clinical PET images were reconstructed with 2 iterations and 18 subsets for the TOF method and 3 iterations and 18 subsets for the OSEM algorithm. FWHM of applied Gaussian filters were 6.4, 5.5 and 4 mm for the OSEM, TOF, and TOF+PSF algorithms, respectively. The noise level for all phantom images was 8.5%±0.3% and all clinical PET images had the noise level of 7.78±0.5%, regardless of reconstruction method used. 2.4. Assessment strategy 2 For evaluation of image quality and quantitative analysis for PET/CT images in the phantom and clinical studies, the coefficient of variation (COV) was calculated based on the noise matching concept [ 27 27 ]. For the phantom images, 12 circular ROIs (region of interest) were drawn on central slices and ±2 slices away, resulting a total of 60 ROIs in the background (Uniform area)[ 36 36 ]. For clinical PET images, liver due to uniform uptake was considered as background and the COV was measured by drawing 3 spherical VOIs ( Φ 37 mm) on the 3 axial slices in the largest and uniform liver section (9 VOIs) that did not cover the porta-hepatis and any of the major vessels in the liver [ 33 33 ]. COV was defined as the mean average activity concentration to the standard deviation of all drawn ROIs for the phantom and clinical images. SNR, lesion-to-background ratio (LBR) and SUVmax were evaluated. SNR was measured as the ratio of the maximum value of tracer activity concentration within a drawn VOI involving the lesion minus the mean activity concentration in background over the SD in the background, and LBR was calculated as the ratio of the maximum value of a VOI involving the lesion over the mean value in the background. For the image quality phantom with 2:1 and 4:1 activity concentration ratios, the accuracy of measured activity concentration was determined as the recovery coefficient (RC) for all the hot inserts. RC was defined as the ratio of observed activity concentration at 50% of 3D isocontour to true activity concentration, multiplied by 100. In clinical data, based on guidelines recommendation, lesion size was estimated by drawing a 3D isocontour at 50% maximum voxel values over a lesion in the images reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm [ 33 33 ]. For TOF and TOF + PSF,, relative changes in SNR with respect to the OSEM method was calculated by: Δ SNR = [( SNR − SNR OSEM )/ SNR OSEM ]× 100%, where SNR is the calculated SNR of the TOF or TOF+PSF images, and SNR OSEM is the measured SNR for images reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm. Relative changes were calculated, too, for other quantitative parameters including SUV max and contrast in the TOF and TOF+PSF method compared to the OSEM algorithm. SNR gain, defined as the ratio of lesion SNR in images reconstructed with the TOF or TOF+PSF method to the corresponding SNR in the OSEM images, was calculated for clinical images. Relative difference of RC was evaluated with regard to insert of Φ 10–37 mm in both activity concentration ratios. The different methods were compared by box and whisker plot, Bland–Altman plots (using a 95% confidence interval) and linear regression analysis. Quantitative analysis was done by two expert radiologist and nuclear medicine physicians. 2.5 Statistical analysis 2 Normal distribution of each variable was evaluated by Shapiro-Wilk analysis. Most of variables rejected normal distribution which guaranteed using parametric analysis. All quantitative parameters were evaluated by non-parametric tests. In addition, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used for pairwise comparison. Significance level within 95% confidence interval was defined as 0.05 for all comparisons. Statistical analysis was done by SPSS package (SPSS, version 22.0, Armonk, NY). 3 Results 1 Reconstructed images of the phantom with 2:1 and 4:1 activity concentration ratios and background activity concentration of 5.3 kBq/mL are shown in Fig. 1 Fig. 1 . Comparing with HD images, quality of the TOF and TOF+PSF algorithm were improved obviously for both activity concentration ratios, especially images reconstructed with the TOF+PSF method. At activity concentration ratio of 2:1, the 10 mm hot insert is visible in the TOF and TOF+PSF images, but not in the HD image Table 1 Table 1 shows the recovery coefficients at LBR=2:1 and 4:1 for images of the phantom inserts of Φ 10–37 mm, reconstructed with the three methods. In general, RC increased with insert diameter for all algorithms and activity concentration ratios, and the greatest values were achieved by the TOF+PSF algorithm. At LBR= 4:1, the relative difference between the TOF+PSF and OSEM method was 23.2% at Φ 13 mm, and 8.2% at Φ 37 mm. * N.D., not detected; N.M., not measured 1 1 Phantom diameter (mm) 6 1 RC % 4 1 Δ RC % 1 1   2 1 HD 2 1 TOF+PSF 2 1 TOF 2 1 TOF 2 1 TOF+PSF 1 1   1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 10 1 1 ND 1 1 50.9 1 1 70.6 1 1 51.6 1 1 71.6 1 1 60.1 1 1 NM 1 1 1.4 1 1 NM 1 1 18.0 1 1 13 1 1 83.1 1 1 59.9 1 1 84.5 1 1 62.1 1 1 87.7 1 1 73.8 1 1 1.7 1 1 3.7 1 1 5.6 1 1 23.2 1 1 17 1 1 90.5 1 1 66.7 1 1 91.4 1 1 69.9 1 1 100.3 1 1 80.3 1 1 1.0 1 1 4.9 1 1 10.8 1 1 20.4 1 1 22 1 1 99.2 1 1 73.0 1 1 98.6 1 1 75.5 1 1 105.9 1 1 83.2 1 1 -0.7 1 1 3.4 1 1 6.7 1 1 14.0 1 1 28 1 1 104.1 1 1 76.2 1 1 102.6 1 1 79.6 1 1 109.4 1 1 85.3 1 1 -1.4 1 1 4.4 1 1 5.1 1 1 11.9 1 1 37 1 1 108.9 1 1 82.2 1 1 110.4 1 1 83.2 1 1 115.9 1 1 89.0 1 1 1.4 1 1 1.2 1 1 6.5 1 1 8.2 SNR increased with insert diameter, too, for all reconstruction methods and activity concentration ratios ( Fig.2a Fig.2a ), while the relative difference of SNR, between the TOF+PSF and OSEM, decreased with increasing diameters, for both activity concentration ratios. Fig. 2(b) Fig. 2(b) shows the SUV max for each hot insert reconstructed with the algorithms for LBR= 4:1 and 2:1. The difference for SNR and SUV max were measured for the inserts ( Table 2 Table 2 ). Due to the performance of the PSF algorithm in partial volume effect correction specially in small lesions in parallel with signal enhancement by the TOF algorithm, there were significant SNR improvements for hot inserts of Φ 10–17 mm, using the TOF+PSF method for both activity concentration ratios. Also, in Fig. 2(b) Fig. 2(b) , the expected values of percentage of SUV max difference (4 and 2) show that SUV max was overestimated for all inserts except Φ 10 mm for all the reconstruction methods. * N.M., not measured 1 1 Phantom diameter (mm) 6 1 Δ SNR % 4 1 Δ SUV max % 1 1   2 1 TOF 2 1 TOF+PSF 2 1 OSEM 2 1 TOF 2 1 TOF+PSF 1 1   1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 2:1 1 1 4:1 1 1 10 1 1 NM 1 1 1.3 1 1 NM 1 1 27.9 1 1 NM 1 1 −3 1 1 −6.3 1 1 −7.4 1 1 −8.5 1 1 −0.9 1 1 13 1 1 15.3 1 1 7.1 1 1 25.4 1 1 39.3 1 1 5 1 1 8.5 1 1 7.6 1 1 7.4 1 1 7.3 1 1 23.1 1 1 17 1 1 3.6 1 1 6.3 1 1 32.3 1 1 25.9 1 1 31.2 1 1 25.8 1 1 26.5 1 1 22.3 1 1 32.1 1 1 35.7 1 1 22 1 1 5.0 1 1 8.9 1 1 20.3 1 1 17.3 1 1 36.9 1 1 26.6 1 1 33.8 1 1 31.3 1 1 40.5 1 1 41.4 1 1 28 1 1 1.2 1 1 14.0 1 1 16.9 1 1 19.6 1 1 51.1 1 1 26.8 1 1 38.7 1 1 29.5 1 1 45.1 1 1 36.5 1 1 37 1 1 4.2 1 1 3.3 1 1 15.6 1 1 12.8 1 1 51.3 1 1 42.1 1 1 47.3 1 1 38.5 1 1 49.7 1 1 46.6 Line profile of the hot inserts are shown in Fig.3 Fig.3 The line profiles indicate that implementing the PSF and TOF algorithms within reconstruction steps creates a notable steep in the center of 37 and 22 mm cylindrical hot inserts, which is a result of signal enhancement in the edges due to Gibbs effect. In the line profile of the Φ 37 mm insert reconstructed with TOF+PSF algorithm, the maximum activity concentration was 23.8 kBq/mL, corresponding to the edge of insert, while the minimum voxel value was in the center of insert (19.7 kBq/mL). So a rise of 21% was observed in the edge of the hot insert voxel values when using TOF+PSF algorithm. For smaller inserts, the Gibbs effect was seen as a peak in the center of the line profiles for the inserts of Φ 10 mm and Φ 17 mm. The line profile of the hot insert of Φ 10 mm in the maximum values for the TOF+PSF method was about 30% higher than that of the OSEM algorithm. Statistical analysis indicated that the median value of the relative difference of SNR was 107.1% ( p < 0.001) for the TOF-to-OSEM methods and 28.8 %( p < 0.001) for the TOF+PSF-to-OSEM methods. SNR gain was 1.6±0.53 ( p < 0.001) for the TOF-to- OSEM methods and 2.7±0.74 ( p < 0.001) for the TOF+PSF-to-OSEM methods. Figure 4 Figure 4 shows the relative difference of lesion contrasts for the TOF and TOF+PSF algorithms, in comparison with the OSEM algorithm, as a function of lesion size. The effects of TOF and TOF+PSF algorithms were more significant for smaller lesions. To assess percentage changes in the contrast on lesion size, Spearman’s correlation coefficient (SCC) were calculated for the TOF and TOF+PSF algorithms. The SCC for contrast changes in respect to lesion size were weak ( ρ = −0.32, p =0.008) for TOF images, and moderate ( ρ = −0.54, p < 0.0001) for TOF+PSF images. The relative difference of contrast was 17%±1.05% ( p < 0.0001) for the TOF-to-OSEM methods and 41.5%±1.85 % ( p < 0.0001) for the TOF+PSF-to-OSEM methods. The agreement between SUV max of the OSEM algorithm and images reconstructed with the TOF and TOF+PSF methods was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis ( Fig.5 Fig.5 ). SUV max for the TOF+PSF-to-OSEM methods (mean=39.6%) was of higher bias than the TOF method (mean=16.2%). The impact of using various reconstruction methods for typical patient with gastric cancer is shown in Fig.6 Fig.6 . It is obvious that the TOF+PSF and TOF can generate higher SUVmax than the OSEM method, especially in small metastatic bone lesions. 4 Discussion 1 Image quality of the OSEM+TOF+PSF (TOF+PSF), OSEM+TOF (TOF) and OSEM algorithms in the new generation PET/CT scanner has been assessed quantitatively. Based on matched voxel noise concept and our previous study (noise level below 10%) [ 27 27 , 31 31 ], optimal reconstruction parameters (the number of iteration, subset, and FWHM of post-smoothing filter) were used in the phantom and clinical data. The noise level was 8.5%±0.3% for phantom images and 7.78±0.5% for clinical data. The phantom study showed that applying the TOF algorithm can improve the image quality significantly for low uptake lesions, especially in small ones. This is in line with other studies[ 13 13 , 37 37 ]. The TOF and PSF +TOF algorithms can improve lesion detectability for 10 mm hot insert at LBR=2:1 by RC=70.6% and 71.6%, respectively. The TOF + PSF method enhances the recovery coefficient of activity concentration, with improved spatial resolution and signal improvement in all phantom images. In general, at the same noise level, the highest RC is observed for the TOF+PSF method, followed by the TOF and OSEM method. The PSF+TOF reconstruction has the highest SNR too, for all insert diameters and activity concentration ratios, however the SNR gain is smaller for Φ 22–37 mm inserts, and higher SNRs are observed for higher LBR. It was reported that TOF SNR was 1.4 times higher than that of non-TOF images in patient study [ 18 18 ]. The TOF, and the TOF+PSF especially, can improve contrast and detectability of lesions, particularly small ones ( < 2.20 cm 3 ). Our phantom results verify high overestimation in SUV max quantification even up to 49% for LBR=4:1 and 2:1. Also, the PSF+TOF and TOF can increase of SUV max in clinical PET/CT images. This is in line with previous studies[ 6 6 , 25 25 ]. Previous studies also demonstrated that, the PSF modelling by creating Gibbs artifact in parallel with partial volume effect correction contributed to the increase of SUV max [ 38 38 - 41 41 38-41 ]. Thus the SUV max enhancement is greater using TOF+PSF. G.Akmatsu et al . reported that no significant difference was found between SUV max of the conventional OSEM algorithm and TOF reconstruction for lymph node metastases [ 30 30 ]. The lack of statistical significance between the OSEM and TOF algorithm is probably due to selections of the reconstruction parameters including iteration, subset, and filter for both algorithms. In the other word, the reconstruction parameters for conventional algorithm can cause more noise level than to TOF images, and the presence of more noise in conventional images increased the measured SUV max in that study resulting the contradiction. It is shown that the new advanced algorithms can improve image quality and lesion detectability. Quantification by SUV for determining lesion features highly depends on reconstruction algorithm, which should be considered for making clinical decision and diagnosis. Our investigation had some limitations. As BMI of the patients were smaller than 27 kg/m 2 , heavy and obese patients were not evaluated in this study. 5 Conclusion 1 The TOF algorithm has the capability of providing better clinical image quality and detectability especially for small lesion with low uptake. At the same noise level, the combination of the PSF modelling with the TOF can give an improved image quality, due to improved SNR and contrast in PET images. The highest SUVmax was observed when implementing the TOF+PSF algorithm. It is also shown that the influence on image quality, of using the TOF+PSF versus the TOF is more significant in small lesions with low uptake of 18 F-FDG. However, this influence decreased for larger lesions. In terms of quantification it is also shown that these algorithms affect the accuracy of measured SUVmax which can influence clinical decisions, and affect the assessment of response to therapy References D. Delbeke , R. E. Coleman , M. J. Guiberteau , et al ., Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0 , J. Nucl. Med ., 47 , 885 - 895 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4 Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0 W. A. Weber , Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome , J. Nucl. Med ., 46 , 983 - 995 ( 2005 ) Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome C. J. Hoekstra , O. S. Hoekstra , S. G. Stroobants , et al ., Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET , J. Nucl. Med ., 43 , 1304 - 1309 ( 2002 ) Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET D. Vriens , E. P. Visser , L.-F. de Geus-Oei , et al ., Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies , Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. I ., 37 , 1408 - 1425 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1306-7 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1306-7 Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies T. Beyer , J. Czernin , and L. S. Freudenberg , Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users , J. Nucl. Med ., 52 , 303 - 310 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.079624 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.079624 Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users G. Akamatsu , K. Ishikawa , K. Mitsumoto , et al ., Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters , J. Nucl. Med . 53 , 1716 - 1722 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.103861 Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters B. Knäusl , I. Rausch , H. Bergmann , et al ., Influence of PET reconstruction para meters on the TrueX algorithm , Nuklearmedizin , 2013 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.3413/Nukmed-0523-12-07 http://doi.org/10.3413/Nukmed-0523-12-07 Influence of PET reconstruction para meters on the TrueX algorithm G. Kuhnert , R. Boellaard , S. Sterzer , et al ., Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis , Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. I . 43 , 249 - 258 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3165-8 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3165-8 Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis S. Sheikhbahaei , C. Marcus , R. Wray , et al ., Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors , Nucl. Med. Commun ., 37 , 288 - 296 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000445 http://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000445 Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors W. Moses , Time of flight in PET revisited , IEEE T. Nucl. Sci ., 50 , 1325 - 1330 ( 2003 ). doi: 10.1109/TNS.2003.817319 http://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2003.817319 Time of flight in PET revisited S. Tong , A. Alessio , and P. Kinahan , Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation , Phys. Med. Biol . 55 , 1453 - 1473 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/013 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/013 Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation S. Surti , J. S. Karp , L. M. Popescu , et al ., Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-DPET, Medical Imaging , IEEE T. Med. Imaging , 25 , 529 - 538 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-DPET, Medical Imaging J. Schaefferkoetter , M. Casey , D. Townsend , et al ., Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study , Phys. Med. Bio . 58 , 1465 - 1478 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study M. Conti , B. Bendriem , M. Casey , et al ., First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner , Phys. Med. Biol . 50 , 4507 - 4526 ( 2005 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/19/006 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/19/006 First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner V. Y. Panin , F. Kehren , C. Michel , et al ., Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , IEEE T. Med. Imaging , 25 , 907 - 921 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1109/TMI.2006.876171 http://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2006.876171 Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements A. M. Alessio , C. W. Stearns , S. Tong , et al ., Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction , IEEE T. Med. Imaging , 29 , 938 - 949 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1109/TMI.2010.2040188 http://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2010.2040188 Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction A. Varrone , N. Sjöholm , L. Eriksson , et al ., Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT , Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. I . 36 , 1639 - 1650 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1156-3 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1156-3 Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT C. Lois , B. W. Jakoby , M. J. Long , et al ., An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging , J. Nucl. Med . 51 , 237 - 245 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.068098 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.068098 An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging D. J. Kadrmas , M. E. Casey , M. Conti , et al ., Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection , J. Nucl. Med . 50 , 1315 - 1323 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063016 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.063016 Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection J. S. Karp , S. Surti , M. E. Daube-Witherspoon , et al ., Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: Experimental and clinical results , J. Nucl. Med . 49 , 462 - 470 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.044834 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.044834 Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: Experimental and clinical results S. Surti , J. Scheuermann , G. El Fakhri , et al ., Impact of time-of-flight PET on whole-body oncologic studies: A human observer lesion detection and localization study , J. Nucl. Med . 52 , 712 - 719 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.086678 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.086678 Impact of time-of-flight PET on whole-body oncologic studies: A human observer lesion detection and localization study M. Conti , Focus on time-of-flight PET: The benefits of improved time resolution , Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. I . 38 , 1147 - 1157 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y Focus on time-of-flight PET: The benefits of improved time resolution G. El Fakhri , S. Surti , C. M. Trott , et al ., Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET , J. Nucl. Med . 52 , 347 - 353 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.080382 http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.080382 Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET V. Bettinardi , L. Presotto , E. Rapisarda , et al ., Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690 , Medical Physics , vol. 38 , 5394 - 5411 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1118/1.3635220 http://doi.org/10.1118/1.3635220 Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690 B. Jakoby , Y. Bercier , M. Conti , et al ., Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , Phys. Med. Biol . 56 , 2375 - 2389 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/004 http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/004 Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner B. Jakoby , Y. Bercier , M. Conti , et al ., Performance investigation of a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner, IEEE Nucl . Sci. Conf. R ., 3738 - 3743 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2008.4774221 http://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2008.4774221 Performance investigation of a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner, IEEE Nucl M. Shekari , P. Ghafarian , S. Ahangari , et al ., Optimizing image reconstruction parameters in time of flight PET/CT imaging: A phantom study , Front. Biomed. Technol . 2 , 146 - 154 , 2015 . Optimizing image reconstruction parameters in time of flight PET/CT imaging: A phantom study S. Ahangari , P. Ghafarian , M. Shekari , et al ., The impact of point spread function modeling on scan duration in PET imaging , Front. Biomed. Technol . 2 , 137 - 145 , 2015 . The impact of point spread function modeling on scan duration in PET imaging E. Prieto , I. Domínguez-Prado , M. J. García-Velloso , et al ., Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET , Clin. Nucl. Med . 38 , 103 - 109 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279b9df http://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279b9df Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET G. Akamatsu , K. Mitsumoto , T. Taniguchi , et al ., Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET , Eur. J. Radiol . 83 , 226 - 230 ( 2014 ). doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.030 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.030 Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET I. S. Armstrong , M. D. Kelly , H. A. Williams , et al ., Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies , EJNMMI Physics , 1 , 99 , 2014 . Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies N. Paquet , A. Albert , J. Foidart , and R. Hustinx , Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: Standardized uptake values in normal tissues , J. Nucl. Med . 45 , 784 - 788 , 2004 . Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: Standardized uptake values in normal tissues R. Boellaard , R. Delgado-Bolton , W. J. Oyen , et al ., FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. I ., 42 , 328 - 354 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x http://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 C. W. Stearns , D. L. McDaniel , S. G. Kohlmyer , et al ., Random coincidence estimation from single event rates on the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner, IEEE Nucl . Sci. Conf. R ., 3067 - 3069 ( 2003 ). doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2003.1352545 http://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2003.1352545 Random coincidence estimation from single event rates on the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner, IEEE Nucl M. Iatrou , R. Manjeshwar , S. Ross , et al ., 3D implementation of scatter estimation in 3D PET . IEEE Nucl. Sci. Conf. R . 4 , 2142 - 2145 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2006.354338 http://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2006.354338 3D implementation of scatter estimation in 3D PET T. L. Morgan , Quality Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems, Health Phys . 103 , 810 - 811 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182690427 http://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182690427 Quality Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems, Health H. Tsuru et al ., Time-of-flight information improves the detectability of sub-centimeter lesions using clinical PET/CT system , J. Nucl. Med . 57 , supplement 2 , 2686 - 2686 , 2016 . Time-of-flight information improves the detectability of sub-centimeter lesions using clinical PET/CT system F. L. Andersen , T. L. Klausen , A. Loft , et al ., Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model , Eur. J. Radiol ., 82 , 862 - 869 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.015 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.015 Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model C. Lasnon , R. J. Hicks , J.-M. Beauregard , et al ., Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer , Clin. Nucl. Med ., 37 , 971 - 976 ( 2012 ). doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318251e3d1 http://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318251e3d1 Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer B. Bai and P. D. Esser , The effect of edge artifacts on quantification of positron emission tomography , IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference , 2263-2266 ( 2010 ). doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2010.5874186 http://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2010.5874186 The effect of edge artifacts on quantification of positron emission tomography D. Kidera , K. Kihara , G. Akamatsu , et al ., The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity , Ann. Nucl. Med ., 30 , 97 - 103 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1007/s12149-015-1036-9 http://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1036-9 The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity 10.1007/s41365-017-0308-6 This work was supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (No. 24166), and the Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2016-10-06 2017-02-22 2017-02-23 2017-10-30 2017-11-01 2021-04-11 © China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChineseNuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nuclear Science and Techniques. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-017-0308-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-017-0308-6 . 2017 Nuclear Science and Techniques 11 28