Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Phantom and clinical evaluation of Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithm in 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT studies

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of varying β-values in the block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) algorithm under differing lesion sizes to determine an optimal penalty factor for clinical application. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association phantom and 15 prostate cancer patients were injected with 68Ga-PSMA and scanned using a GE Discovery IQ PET/CT scanner. Images were reconstructed using ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and BSREM with different β-values. Then, the background variability (BV), contrast recovery, signal-to-noise ratio, and lung residual error were measured from the phantom data, and the signal-to-background ratio (SBR) and contrast from the clinical data. The increment of BV using a β-value of 100 was 120.0%, and the decrement of BV using a β-value of 1000 was 40.5% compared to OSEM. As β decreased from 1000 to 100, the \({SUV}_{max}\) increased by 59.0% for a sphere with a diameter of 10 mm and 26.4% for a sphere with a diameter of 37 mm. Conversely, \({\Delta } {SNR}_{100-1000}\) increased by 140.5% and 29.0% in the smallest and largest spheres, respectively. Furthermore, the Δ\({LE}_{OSEM-100}\) and Δ\({LE}_{OSEM-1000}\) were − 41.1% and − 36.7%, respectively. In the clinical study, OSEM exhibited the lowest SBR and contrast. When the β-value was reduced from 500 to 100, the SBR and contrast increased by 69.7% and 71.8% in small and 35.6% and 33.0%, respectively, in large lesions. Moreover, the optimal β-value decreased as lesion size decreased. In conclusion, a β-value of 400 is optimal for small lesion reconstruction, while β-values of 600 and 500 are optimal for large lesions in phantom and clinical studies, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Czernin J, Schelbert H (2004) PET/CT imaging: facts, opinions, hopes, and questions. J Nucl Med 45:1S–3S

    Google Scholar 

  2. Messerli M, Stolzmann P, Egger-Sigg M et al (2018) Impact of a bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on image quality in novel digital PET/CT: clinical implications for the assessment of lung tumors. EJNMMI Phys 5:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez‐Cenzano C, Vercher‐Conejero JL, Sabaté‐Llobera A, Calvo‐Malvar N, Martí‐Climent JM (2018) Phantom, clinical, and texture indices evaluation and optimization of a penalized‐likelihood image reconstruction method (Q. Clear) on a BGO PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 45:3214–3222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lantos J, Mittra ES, Levin CS, Iagaru A (2018) Standard OSEM vs. regularized PET image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison using phantom data and various clinical radiopharmaceuticals. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 8:110

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ross S (2013) Q.clear (GE healthcare white paper). http://www.enmodedesign.com/MotionFree/QClear_White_Paper_DOC1474189REV_3_2014_06.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2015

  6. Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV (2015) Phantom and clinical evaluation of the bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 56:1447–1452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lindström E, Lindsjö L, Sundin A, Sörensen J, Lubberink M (2020) Evaluation of block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction of 68 Ga-DOTATOC, 18 F-fluoride, and 11 C-acetate whole-body examinations acquired on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. EJNMMI Phys 7:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberini V, Messerli M, Husmann L et al (2021) Improved detection of in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma with BSREM reconstruction in digital [18F] FDG PET/CT. Eur Radiol 31:8011–8020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Caribé PR, Koole M, D’Asseler Y, Van den Broeck B, Vandenberghe S (2019) Noise reduction using a bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner. EJNMMI Phys 6:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sasikumar A (2017) Specificity of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer-myths and reality. Indian J Nuclear Med: IJNM: Off J Soc Nuclear Med India 32:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonmarker O, Axelsson R, Nilsson T, Gabrielson S (2021) Comparison of regularized reconstruction and ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction in the diagnostics of prostate cancer using digital time-of-flight 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging. Diagnostics 11:630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindström E, Velikyan I, Regula N et al (2019) Regularized reconstruction of digital time-of-flight 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for the detection of recurrent disease in prostate cancer patients. Theranostics 9:3476

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodríguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Martí-Climent JM (2017) Performance characteristics of the whole-body discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 58:1155–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. NEMA (2001) NU 2: Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, pp 11–12

  15. NEMA I (1998) International standard: radionuclide imaging devices characteristics and test conditions part 1: positron emission tomographs. International Electrotechnical Commission(IEC), Tech Rep, IEC:61675–61671

  16. Monsef A, Ay MR, Sheikhzadeh P, Geramifar P, Rahmim A, Ghafarian P (2022) Harmonization based on quantitative analysis of standardized uptake value variations across PET/CT scanners: a multicenter phantom study. Nucl Med Commun 43:1004–1014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS, Casey ME et al (2002) PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med 43:1398–1409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindström E, Sundin A, Trampal C et al (2018) Evaluation of penalized-likelihood estimation reconstruction on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner for 18F-FDG whole-body examinations. J Nucl Med 59:1152–1158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberini V, Pizzuto DA, Messerli M et al (2022) BSREM for Brain Metastasis detection with 18F-FDG-PET/CT in lung Cancer Patients. J Digit Imaging 35:581–593

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ter Voert EE, Muehlematter UJ, Delso G et al (2018) Quantitative performance and optimal regularization parameter in block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstructions in clinical 68Ga-PSMA PET/MR. EJNMMI Res 8:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lohaus N, Enderlin F, Skawran S et al (2022) Impact of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction on quantitative and qualitative aspects for pulmonary nodule detection in digital 2-[18F] FDG-PET/CT. Sci Rep 12:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trägårdh E, Minarik D, Almquist H et al (2019) Impact of acquisition time and penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm on a Si-photomultiplier-based PET-CT system for 18F-FDG. EJNMMI Res 9:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindstrom E, Lindsjo L, Sundin A, Sorensen J, Lubberink M (2020) Evaluation of block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction of (68) Ga-DOTATOC, F-18-fluoride, and (11) C-acetate whole-body examinations acquired on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. EJNMMI Phys. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00310-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Y, Lin L, Quan W, Li J, Li W (2022) Effect of bayesian penalty likelihood algorithm on 18F-FDG PET/CT image of lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 43:284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Du J, Ariño-Estrada G, Bai X, Cherry SR (2020) Performance comparison of dual-ended readout depth-encoding PET detectors based on BGO and LYSO crystals. Phys Med Biol 65:235030

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Miwa K, Yoshii T, Wagatsuma K et al (2023) Impact of γ factor in the penalty function of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q. Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images. EJNMMI Phys 10:4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al (2015) The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:197–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported under Grant No. 52599, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peyman Sheikhzadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

No informed consent was required due to the anonymized patient’s data were used.

Research involving human and animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors and is only a retrospective study. The anonymized patient’s data were used in this study which approved by Research Ethics Committees of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Approval code: IR.TUMS.IKHC.REC.1400.312).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadeghi, F., Sheikhzadeh, P., Kasraie, N. et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithm in 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT studies. Phys Eng Sci Med 46, 1297–1308 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01299-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01299-4

Keywords

Navigation