Erschienen in:
01.03.2007 | Original article
Evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) versus filtered back-projection for the assessment of myocardial glucose uptake and myocardial perfusion using dynamic PET
verfasst von:
Hanne M. Søndergaard, Mette Marie Madsen, Karin Boisen, Morten Bøttcher, Ole Schmitz, Torsten T. Nielsen, Hans Erik Bøtker, Søren B. Hansen
Erschienen in:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
|
Ausgabe 3/2007
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose
Iterative reconstruction methods based on ordered-subset expectation maximisation (OSEM) has replaced filtered backprojection (FBP) in many clinical settings owing to the superior image quality. Whether OSEM is as accurate as FBP in quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) is uncertain. We compared the accuracy of OSEM and FBP for regional myocardial 18F-FDG uptake and 13NH3 perfusion measurements in cardiac PET.
Methods
Ten healthy volunteers were studied. Five underwent dynamic 18F-FDG PET during hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp, and five underwent 13NH3 perfusion measurement during rest and adenosine-induced hyperaemia. Images were reconstructed using FBP and OSEM ± an 8-mm Gaussian post-reconstruction filter.
Results
Filtered and unfiltered images showed agreement between the reconstruction methods within ±2SD in Bland-Altman plots of K
i values. The use of a Gaussian filter resulted in a systematic underestimation of K
i in the filtered images of 11%. The mean deviation between the reconstruction methods for both unfiltered and filtered images was 1.3%. Agreement within ±2SD between the methods was demonstrated for perfusion rate constants up to 2.5 min−1, corresponding to a perfusion of 3.4 ml g−1 min−1. The mean deviation between the two methods for unfiltered data was 2.7%, and for filtered data, 5.3%.
Conclusion
The 18F-FDG uptake rate constants showed excellent agreement between the two reconstruction methods. In the perfusion range up to 3.4 ml g−1 min−1, agreement between 13NH3 perfusion obtained with OSEM and FBP was acceptable. The use of OSEM for measurement of perfusion values higher than 3.4 ml g−1 min−1 requires further evaluation.