Image reconstruction and analysis of atherosclerosis imaging by [18F]FDG PETCT using digital PET technology.

IF 7.6 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Stephen Rankin, A J Gemmell, J McClure, B Venugopal, P J Slomka, M C Petrie, N N Lang, D Colville, Alexander Small
{"title":"Image reconstruction and analysis of atherosclerosis imaging by [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PETCT using digital PET technology.","authors":"Stephen Rankin, A J Gemmell, J McClure, B Venugopal, P J Slomka, M C Petrie, N N Lang, D Colville, Alexander Small","doi":"10.1007/s00259-025-07345-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Digital PETCT scanners have improved spatial resolution and sensitivity. This may have implications for reconstruction parameters and atherosclerosis assessment using [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG. On a contemporary digital scanner, we assessed European Association of Nuclear Medicine's (EANM)-recommended reconstruction parameters and blood pool methods, compared with a locally-optimised protocol using fewer iterations and subsets than recommended by EANM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using clinical PETCT and phantom analysis, we quantitatively assessed two reconstructions ('EANM' and 'local') for atherosclerotic assessment using mean contrast recovery (MCR), absolute error and coefficient of variation (CoV). We assessed the impact of each reconstruction on tissue-to-background ratio (TBR). We also assessed the differences within four blood pool regions on repeated imaging over 24-weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EANM reconstruction yielded higher TBRmax, 4.28 ± 0.65 vs 1.81 ± 0.24 p < 0.0001, than local reconstruction. Phantom data demonstrated a higher RCmax curve with EANM vs local reconstruction. EANM MCR was 1.87 vs 1.23 with local reconstruction, with higher absolute error (2.23 vs 0.61) and variation (7.63% vs 4.14%), vs local reconstruction. Superior vena cava (SVC) offered the most reproducible and reliable blood pool data. Internal jugular vein had lower FDG-uptake compared to other regions, resulting in higher TBRmax, but was less reproducible between scans over 24 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Local reconstruction, with fewer iterations and subsets compared to EANM recommendations, resulted in more accurate atherosclerotic assessment on a contemporary digital scanner. Metrics for assessing reconstructions, such as absolute error and CoV, provided valuable information. The blood pool region used affects TBR. SVC appears to provide the most reliable blood pool region.</p>","PeriodicalId":11909,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-025-07345-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

Purpose: Digital PETCT scanners have improved spatial resolution and sensitivity. This may have implications for reconstruction parameters and atherosclerosis assessment using [18F]FDG. On a contemporary digital scanner, we assessed European Association of Nuclear Medicine's (EANM)-recommended reconstruction parameters and blood pool methods, compared with a locally-optimised protocol using fewer iterations and subsets than recommended by EANM.

Methods: Using clinical PETCT and phantom analysis, we quantitatively assessed two reconstructions ('EANM' and 'local') for atherosclerotic assessment using mean contrast recovery (MCR), absolute error and coefficient of variation (CoV). We assessed the impact of each reconstruction on tissue-to-background ratio (TBR). We also assessed the differences within four blood pool regions on repeated imaging over 24-weeks.

Results: EANM reconstruction yielded higher TBRmax, 4.28 ± 0.65 vs 1.81 ± 0.24 p < 0.0001, than local reconstruction. Phantom data demonstrated a higher RCmax curve with EANM vs local reconstruction. EANM MCR was 1.87 vs 1.23 with local reconstruction, with higher absolute error (2.23 vs 0.61) and variation (7.63% vs 4.14%), vs local reconstruction. Superior vena cava (SVC) offered the most reproducible and reliable blood pool data. Internal jugular vein had lower FDG-uptake compared to other regions, resulting in higher TBRmax, but was less reproducible between scans over 24 weeks.

Conclusion: Local reconstruction, with fewer iterations and subsets compared to EANM recommendations, resulted in more accurate atherosclerotic assessment on a contemporary digital scanner. Metrics for assessing reconstructions, such as absolute error and CoV, provided valuable information. The blood pool region used affects TBR. SVC appears to provide the most reliable blood pool region.

应用数字PET技术对[18F]FDG PETCT动脉粥样硬化成像进行图像重建与分析。
目的:数字PETCT扫描仪提高了空间分辨率和灵敏度。这可能对使用FDG进行重建参数和动脉粥样硬化评估有影响[18F]。在现代数字扫描仪上,我们评估了欧洲核医学协会(EANM)推荐的重建参数和血池方法,并与使用比EANM推荐的更少迭代和子集的局部优化方案进行比较。方法:使用临床PETCT和幻影分析,我们定量评估了两种重建(“EANM”和“local”)用于动脉粥样硬化评估,使用平均对比恢复(MCR)、绝对误差和变异系数(CoV)。我们评估了每次重建对组织背景比(TBR)的影响。我们还评估了24周内四个血池区域重复成像的差异。结果:EANM重建的TBRmax更高,为4.28±0.65 vs 1.81±0.24 p。结论:与EANM建议相比,局部重建的迭代次数和亚群更少,在现代数字扫描仪上可以更准确地评估动脉粥样硬化。评估重建的指标,如绝对误差和冠状病毒,提供了有价值的信息。使用的血池区域影响TBR。SVC似乎提供了最可靠的血池区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
9.90%
发文量
392
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging serves as a platform for the exchange of clinical and scientific information within nuclear medicine and related professions. It welcomes international submissions from professionals involved in the functional, metabolic, and molecular investigation of diseases. The journal's coverage spans physics, dosimetry, radiation biology, radiochemistry, and pharmacy, providing high-quality peer review by experts in the field. Known for highly cited and downloaded articles, it ensures global visibility for research work and is part of the EJNMMI journal family.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信