How Do the More Recent Reconstruction Algorithms Affect the Interpretation Criteria of PET/CT Images?
10.1007/s13139-019-00594-x
- Author:
Antonella MATTI
1
;
Giacomo Maria LIMA
;
Cinzia PETTINATO
;
Francesca PIETROBON
;
Felice MARTINELLI
;
Stefano FANTI
Author Information
1. Nuclear Medicine Department, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy. antomatti@hotmail.com, giacomo.maria.lima@gmail.com, stefano.fanti@aosp.bo.it
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Q.Clear;
OSEM;
18FDG-PET;
Reconstruction algorithm;
BPL reconstruction algorithm;
PET/CT
- MeSH:
Delivery of Health Care;
Evaluation Studies as Topic;
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18;
Follow-Up Studies;
Liver;
Nuclear Medicine;
Positron-Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
- From:Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
2019;53(3):216-222
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Recently, a new Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (BPL) Reconstruction Algorithm was introduced by GE Healthcare, Q.Clear; it promises to provide better PET image resolution compared to the widely used Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OSEM). The aimof this study is to compare the performance of these two algorithms on several types of findings, in terms of image quality, lesion detectability, sensitivity, and specificity.METHODS: Between September 6th 2017 and July 31st 2018, 663 whole body 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed at the Nuclear Medicine Department of S. Martino Hospital (Belluno, Italy). Based on the availability of clinical/radiological follow-up data, 240 scans were retrospectively reviewed. For each scan, a hypermetabolic finding was selected, reporting both for OSEM and Q.Clear: SUVmax and SUVmean values of the finding, the liver and the background close to the finding; size of the finding; percentage variations of SUVmax and SUVmean. Each finding was subsequently correlated with clinical and radiological follow-up, to define its benign/malignant nature.RESULTS: Overall, Q.Clear improved the SUVvalues in each scan, especially in small findings (< 10mm), high SUVmax values (≥ 10), and medium/low backgrounds. Furthermore, Q.Clear amplifies the signal of hypermetabolic findings without modifying the background signal, which leads to an increase in signal-to-noise ratio, improving overall image quality. Finally, Q.Clear did not affect PET sensitivity or specificity, in terms of number of reported findings and characterization of their nature.CONCLUSIONS: Q.Clear is an iterative algorithm that improves significantly the quality of PET images compared to OSEM, increasing the SUVmax of findings (in particular for small findings) and the signal-to-noise ratio. However, due to the intrinsic characteristics of this algorithm, it will be necessary to adapt and/or modify the current interpretative criteria based of quantitative evaluation, to avoid an overestimation of the disease burden.
