Jessica B. Hopson;Sam Ellis;Anthime Flaus;Colm J. McGinnity;Radhouene Neji;Andrew J. Reader;Alexander Hammers
{"title":"Clinical and Deep-Learned Evaluation of MR-Guided Self-Supervised PET Reconstruction","authors":"Jessica B. Hopson;Sam Ellis;Anthime Flaus;Colm J. McGinnity;Radhouene Neji;Andrew J. Reader;Alexander Hammers","doi":"10.1109/TRPMS.2024.3496779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reduced dose positron emission tomography (PET) lowers the radiation dose to patients and reduces costs. Lower-count data, however, degrades reconstructed image quality. Advanced reconstruction methods help mitigate image quality losses, but it is important to assess the resulting images from a clinical perspective. Two experienced clinicians assessed four PET reconstruction algorithms for [18F]FDG brain data, compared to a clinical standard reference (maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization (MLEM)), based on seven clinical image quality metrics: global quality rating, pattern recognition, diagnostic confidence (all on a scale of 0–4), sharpness, caudate-putamen separation (CP), noise, and contrast (on a scale between 0–2). The reconstruction methods assessed were a guided and unguided version of self-supervised maximum a posteriori EM (MAPEM) (where the guidance case used the patient’s MR image to control the smoothness penalty). For 3 of the 11 patient datasets reconstructed, post-smoothed versions of the MAPEM reconstruction were also considered, where the smoothing was with the point-spread-function used in the resolution modelling. Statistically significant improvements were observed in sharpness, CP, and contrast for self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM compared to MLEM. For example, MLEM scored between 1-1.1 out of 2 for sharpness, CP, and contrast, whereas self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM scored between 1.5-1.75. In addition to the clinical evaluation, pretrained convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were used to assess the image quality of a further 62 images. The CNNs demonstrated similar trends to the clinician, showing their potential as automated standalone observers. Both the clinical and CNN assessments suggest when using only 5% of the standard injected dose, self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM reconstruction matches the 100% MLEM case for overall performance. This makes the images far more clinically useful than standard MLEM.","PeriodicalId":46807,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences","volume":"9 3","pages":"337-346"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10754997/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Reduced dose positron emission tomography (PET) lowers the radiation dose to patients and reduces costs. Lower-count data, however, degrades reconstructed image quality. Advanced reconstruction methods help mitigate image quality losses, but it is important to assess the resulting images from a clinical perspective. Two experienced clinicians assessed four PET reconstruction algorithms for [18F]FDG brain data, compared to a clinical standard reference (maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization (MLEM)), based on seven clinical image quality metrics: global quality rating, pattern recognition, diagnostic confidence (all on a scale of 0–4), sharpness, caudate-putamen separation (CP), noise, and contrast (on a scale between 0–2). The reconstruction methods assessed were a guided and unguided version of self-supervised maximum a posteriori EM (MAPEM) (where the guidance case used the patient’s MR image to control the smoothness penalty). For 3 of the 11 patient datasets reconstructed, post-smoothed versions of the MAPEM reconstruction were also considered, where the smoothing was with the point-spread-function used in the resolution modelling. Statistically significant improvements were observed in sharpness, CP, and contrast for self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM compared to MLEM. For example, MLEM scored between 1-1.1 out of 2 for sharpness, CP, and contrast, whereas self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM scored between 1.5-1.75. In addition to the clinical evaluation, pretrained convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were used to assess the image quality of a further 62 images. The CNNs demonstrated similar trends to the clinician, showing their potential as automated standalone observers. Both the clinical and CNN assessments suggest when using only 5% of the standard injected dose, self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM reconstruction matches the 100% MLEM case for overall performance. This makes the images far more clinically useful than standard MLEM.