open access
Performance of a deep learning enhancement method applied to PET images acquired with a reduced acquisition time
, 2, 12
Affiliations- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Affidea Polska, Poznan, Poland
- Department of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
- Department of Informatics and Statistics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
open access
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the performance of a deep learning enhancement method in PET images reconstructed with a shorter acquisition time, and different reconstruction algorithms. The impact of the enhancement on clinical decisions was also assessed.
Material and methods: Thirty-seven subjects underwent clinical whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT exams with an acquisition time of 1.5 min per bed position. PET images were reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm using 66% counts (imitating 1 min/bed acquisition time) and 100% counts (1.5 min/bed). Images reconstructed from 66% counts were subsequently enhanced using the SubtlePET™ (SP) deep-learning-based software, (Subtle Medical, USA) — with two different software versions (SP1 and SP2). Additionally, images obtained with 66% counts were reconstructed with QClear™ (GE, USA) algorithm and enhanced with SP2. Volumes of interest (VOI) of the lesions and reference VOIs in the liver, brain, bladder, and mediastinum were drawn on OSEM images and copied on SP images. Quantitative SUVmax values per VOI of OSEM or QClear™ and AI-enhanced ‘shortened’ acquisitions were compared.
Results: Two hundred and fifty-two VOIs were identified (37 for each reference region, and 104 for the lesions) for OSEM, SP1, SP2, and QClear™ images AI-enhanced with SP2. SUVmax values on SP1 images were lower than standard OSEM, but on SP2 differences were smaller (average difference for SP1 11.6%, for SP2 −4.5%). For images reconstructed with QClear™, SUVmax values were higher (average +8.9%, median 6.1%, SD 18.9%). For small lesions with SUVmax values range 2.0 to 4.0 decrease of measured SUVmax was much less significant with SP2 (for liver average −6.5%, median −5.6% for lesions average −5.6%, median — 6.0, SD 5.2%) and showed the best correlation with original OSEM. While no artifacts and good general diagnostic confidence were found in AI-enhanced images, SP1, the images were not equal to the original OSEM — some lesions were hard to spot. SP2 produced images with almost the same quality as the original 1.5 min/bed OSEM reconstruction.
Conclusions: The studied deep learning enhancement method can be used to accelerate PET acquisitions without compromising quantitative SUVmax values. AI-based algorithms can enhance the image quality of accelerated PET acquisitions, enabling the dose reduction to the patients and improving the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT imaging.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the performance of a deep learning enhancement method in PET images reconstructed with a shorter acquisition time, and different reconstruction algorithms. The impact of the enhancement on clinical decisions was also assessed.
Material and methods: Thirty-seven subjects underwent clinical whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT exams with an acquisition time of 1.5 min per bed position. PET images were reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm using 66% counts (imitating 1 min/bed acquisition time) and 100% counts (1.5 min/bed). Images reconstructed from 66% counts were subsequently enhanced using the SubtlePET™ (SP) deep-learning-based software, (Subtle Medical, USA) — with two different software versions (SP1 and SP2). Additionally, images obtained with 66% counts were reconstructed with QClear™ (GE, USA) algorithm and enhanced with SP2. Volumes of interest (VOI) of the lesions and reference VOIs in the liver, brain, bladder, and mediastinum were drawn on OSEM images and copied on SP images. Quantitative SUVmax values per VOI of OSEM or QClear™ and AI-enhanced ‘shortened’ acquisitions were compared.
Results: Two hundred and fifty-two VOIs were identified (37 for each reference region, and 104 for the lesions) for OSEM, SP1, SP2, and QClear™ images AI-enhanced with SP2. SUVmax values on SP1 images were lower than standard OSEM, but on SP2 differences were smaller (average difference for SP1 11.6%, for SP2 −4.5%). For images reconstructed with QClear™, SUVmax values were higher (average +8.9%, median 6.1%, SD 18.9%). For small lesions with SUVmax values range 2.0 to 4.0 decrease of measured SUVmax was much less significant with SP2 (for liver average −6.5%, median −5.6% for lesions average −5.6%, median — 6.0, SD 5.2%) and showed the best correlation with original OSEM. While no artifacts and good general diagnostic confidence were found in AI-enhanced images, SP1, the images were not equal to the original OSEM — some lesions were hard to spot. SP2 produced images with almost the same quality as the original 1.5 min/bed OSEM reconstruction.
Conclusions: The studied deep learning enhancement method can be used to accelerate PET acquisitions without compromising quantitative SUVmax values. AI-based algorithms can enhance the image quality of accelerated PET acquisitions, enabling the dose reduction to the patients and improving the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT imaging.
Keywords
artificial intelligence; dose reduction; PET/CT; deep learning
About this articleTitle
Performance of a deep learning enhancement method applied to PET images acquired with a reduced acquisition time
Journal
Issue
Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing
Article type
Research paper
Pages
116-122
Published online
2023-10-03
Page views
605
Article views/downloads
366
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Nucl. Med. Rev 2023;26:116-122.
Keywords
artificial intelligence
dose reduction
PET/CT
deep learning
Authors
Krzysztof Ciborowski
Anna Gramek-Jedwabna
Monika Gołąb
Izabela Miechowicz
Jolanta Szczurek
Marek Ruchała
Rafał Czepczyński
References (20)- Nensa F, Demircioglu A, Rischpler C. Artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2019; 60(Suppl 2): 29S–37S.
- Salem AE, Shah HR, Covington MF, et al. PET-CT in clinical adult oncology: I. hematologic malignancies. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(23).
- Zhao HB, Liu C, Ye J, et al. A comparison between deep learning convolutional neural networks and radiologists in the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules on CT images. Endokrynol Pol. 2021; 72(3): 217–225.
- Arabi H, Zaidi H. Applications of artificial intelligence and deep learning in molecular imaging and radiotherapy. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2020; 4(1): 17.
- Sollini M, Bartoli F, Marciano A, et al. Artificial intelligence and hybrid imaging: the best match for personalized medicine in oncology. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2020; 4(1): 24.
- Wyszomirska A, Czepczyński R, Sałyga A, et al. Effect of acquisition time on the measurement of SUV parameter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012; 39: S508–S509.
- Aide N, Lasnon C, Kesner A, et al. New PET technologies — embracing progress and pushing the limits. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48(9): 2711–2726.
- Arabi H, AkhavanAllaf A, Sanaat A, et al. The promise of artificial intelligence and deep learning in PET and SPECT imaging. Phys Med. 2021; 83: 122–137.
- Reader AJ, Schramm G. Artificial intelligence for PET image reconstruction. J Nucl Med. 2021; 62(10): 1330–1333.
- Visvikis D, Lambin P, Beuschau Mauridsen K, et al. Application of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging: a review of current status and future perspectives for clinical translation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(13): 4452–4463.
- Mehranian A, Wollenweber SD, Walker MD, et al. Deep learning-based time-of-flight (ToF) image enhancement of non-ToF PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(11): 3740–3749.
- Xue S, Guo R, Bohn KP, et al. A cross-scanner and cross-tracer deep learning method for the recovery of standard-dose imaging quality from low-dose PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(6): 1843–1856.
- Katsari K, Penna D, Arena V, et al. Artificial intelligence for reduced dose 18F-FDG PET examinations: a real-world deployment through a standardized framework and business case assessment. EJNMMI Phys. 2021; 8(1): 25.
- Xu F, Pan B, Zhu X, et al. Evaluation of deep learning based PET image enhancement method in diagnosis of lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61(Supp.1): 431.
- Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, et al. Performance characteristics of the whole-body discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58(7): 1155–1161.
- Wyrzykowski M, Siminiak N, Kaźmierczak M, et al. Impact of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on the interpretation of PET/CT images in patients with lymphoma. EJNMMI Res. 2020; 10(1): 99.
- Weyts K, Lasnon C, Ciappuccini R, et al. Artificial intelligence-based PET denoising could allow a two-fold reduction in [F]FDG PET acquisition time in digital PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(11): 3750–3760.
- Bonardel G, Dupont A, Decazes P, et al. Clinical and phantom validation of a deep learning based denoising algorithm for F-18-FDG PET images from lower detection counting in comparison with the standard acquisition. EJNMMI Phys. 2022; 9(1): 36.
- Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 159–174.
- Sanaat A, Shiri I, Arabi H, et al. Deep learning-assisted ultra-fast/low-dose whole-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48(8): 2405–2415.
