Evaluation of PET/CT Artificial Intelligence Image Reconstructions VS Harmonized Clinical Reconstruction.

IF 4.2
Panayiotis Hadjitheodorou, Michalis Sotiriou, Kyriaki Kyrou, Giorgos Adamou, Michalis Eleftheriou, Kyriaki Konstantinidou, Alexis Vrachimis
{"title":"Evaluation of PET/CT Artificial Intelligence Image Reconstructions VS Harmonized Clinical Reconstruction.","authors":"Panayiotis Hadjitheodorou, Michalis Sotiriou, Kyriaki Kyrou, Giorgos Adamou, Michalis Eleftheriou, Kyriaki Konstantinidou, Alexis Vrachimis","doi":"10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study focuses on evaluating how SubtlePET™, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based image enhancement algorithm, produced PET/CT images compare against EARL Standard-2 harmonized images, and to assess its impact on quantitative accuracy and workflow in a clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A NEMA IEC PET Body Phantom with 10:1 (EARL protocol) and 4:1 (NEMA NU2-2018 protocol) sphere-to-background ratios were scanned using a General Electric Discovery™ IQ Gen-2 PET/CT system. Data were acquired in list mode for 10 minutes per bed position and retrospectively reconstructed to simulate reduced scan duration. Images were reconstructed with and without SubtlePET<sup>TM</sup> (phantom image trained) using EARL Standard-2 accredited reconstruction. Recovery coefficients (SUV<sub>mean</sub>,<sub>max</sub>,<sub>peak</sub>) were calculated and compared to EARL standard-2 along with their repeatability. Additionally, 23 patient datasets acquired for 3-minutes per bed-position were reconstructed to simulate reduced acquisition time both by SubtlePET<sup>TM</sup> (human image trained) and EARL Standard-2 reconstruction parameters. Lesions were segmented semi-automatically to assess SUV and volume metrics. Statistical comparisons were performed using a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SubtlePET<sup>TM</sup> reconstructions achieved 91% compliance with EARL standard-2. SUV<sub>peak</sub> remained the most robust metric across scan duration. Patient data showed no significant differences in SUV<sub>peak</sub> or volume for SubtlePET<sup>TM</sup> at half the acquisition time. Minor deviations were noted in SUV<sub>max</sub> and SUV<sub>mean</sub> for smaller lesions at 1-min/bed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SubtlePET™ preserves quantitative performance comparable to EARL Standard 2-compliant reconstructions, particularly when SUVpeak is used, although deviations associated with reduced acquisition time persist. These findings support the potential for reduced scan duration, which may facilitate lower radiation exposure or increased patient throughput without compromising diagnostic quality. Further validation across different scanners and clinical settings is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":101315,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.06.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study focuses on evaluating how SubtlePET™, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based image enhancement algorithm, produced PET/CT images compare against EARL Standard-2 harmonized images, and to assess its impact on quantitative accuracy and workflow in a clinical setting.

Methods: A NEMA IEC PET Body Phantom with 10:1 (EARL protocol) and 4:1 (NEMA NU2-2018 protocol) sphere-to-background ratios were scanned using a General Electric Discovery™ IQ Gen-2 PET/CT system. Data were acquired in list mode for 10 minutes per bed position and retrospectively reconstructed to simulate reduced scan duration. Images were reconstructed with and without SubtlePETTM (phantom image trained) using EARL Standard-2 accredited reconstruction. Recovery coefficients (SUVmean,max,peak) were calculated and compared to EARL standard-2 along with their repeatability. Additionally, 23 patient datasets acquired for 3-minutes per bed-position were reconstructed to simulate reduced acquisition time both by SubtlePETTM (human image trained) and EARL Standard-2 reconstruction parameters. Lesions were segmented semi-automatically to assess SUV and volume metrics. Statistical comparisons were performed using a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.

Results: SubtlePETTM reconstructions achieved 91% compliance with EARL standard-2. SUVpeak remained the most robust metric across scan duration. Patient data showed no significant differences in SUVpeak or volume for SubtlePETTM at half the acquisition time. Minor deviations were noted in SUVmax and SUVmean for smaller lesions at 1-min/bed.

Conclusion: SubtlePET™ preserves quantitative performance comparable to EARL Standard 2-compliant reconstructions, particularly when SUVpeak is used, although deviations associated with reduced acquisition time persist. These findings support the potential for reduced scan duration, which may facilitate lower radiation exposure or increased patient throughput without compromising diagnostic quality. Further validation across different scanners and clinical settings is warranted.

PET/CT人工智能图像重建与协调临床重建的比较
背景:本研究的重点是评估基于人工智能(AI)的图像增强算法,如何产生PET/CT图像与EARL标准2协调图像进行比较,并评估其对临床环境中定量准确性和工作流程的影响。方法:使用通用电气Discovery™IQ Gen-2 PET/CT系统扫描球体与背景比为10:1 (EARL协议)和4:1 (NEMA NU2-2018协议)的NEMA IEC PET体幻影。以列表模式获取每个床位10分钟的数据,并回顾性重建以模拟缩短的扫描时间。使用EARL标准-2认证的重建方法,在使用和不使用精妙pettm(幻影图像训练)的情况下重建图像。计算回收率系数(SUVmean、max、peak),并与EARL标准-2进行重复性比较。此外,通过人类图像训练(人类图像训练)和EARL标准-2重建参数,重建每个床位3分钟采集的23个患者数据集,以模拟减少的采集时间。病变被半自动分割以评估SUV和体积指标。采用假设方差相等的两样本t检验进行统计比较。结果:重建结果符合EARL -2标准91%。在整个扫描时间内,SUVpeak仍然是最可靠的指标。患者数据显示,在获取时间的一半时,精妙pettm的SUVpeak或体积没有显着差异。对于1分钟/床的较小病变,SUVmax和SUVmean的偏差较小。结论:尽管与减少采集时间相关的偏差持续存在,但仍保留了与EARL标准2兼容重建相当的定量性能,特别是当使用SUVpeak时。这些发现支持缩短扫描时间的潜力,这可能有助于降低辐射暴露或提高患者吞吐量,而不影响诊断质量。需要在不同的扫描仪和临床环境中进一步验证。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书