放射栓塞术中的单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)减影:四种方法的比较。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING EJNMMI Physics Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1186/s40658-024-00675-7
Camiel E M Kerckhaert, Hugo W A M de Jong, Marjolein B M Meddens, Rob van Rooij, Maarten L J Smits, Yothin Rakvongthai, Martijn M A Dietze
{"title":"放射栓塞术中的单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)减影:四种方法的比较。","authors":"Camiel E M Kerckhaert, Hugo W A M de Jong, Marjolein B M Meddens, Rob van Rooij, Maarten L J Smits, Yothin Rakvongthai, Martijn M A Dietze","doi":"10.1186/s40658-024-00675-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images has a number of clinical applications in e.g. foci localization in ictal/inter-ictal SPECT and defect detection in rest/stress cardiac SPECT. In this work, we investigated the technical performance of SPECT subtraction for the purpose of quantifying the effect of a vasoconstricting drug (angiotensin-II, or AT2) on the Tc-99m-MAA liver distribution in hepatic radioembolization using an innovative interventional hybrid C-arm scanner. Given that subtraction of SPECT images is challenging due to high noise levels and poor resolution, we compared four methods to obtain a difference image in terms of image quality and quantitative accuracy. These methods included (i) image subtraction: subtraction of independently reconstructed SPECT images, (ii) projection subtraction: reconstruction of a SPECT image from subtracted projections, (iii) projection addition: reconstruction by addition of projections as a background term during the iterative reconstruction, and (iv) image addition: simultaneous reconstruction of the difference image and the subtracted image.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Digital simulations (XCAT) and phantom studies (NEMA-IQ and anthropomorphic torso) showed that all four methods were able to generate difference images but their performance on specific metrics varied substantially. Image subtraction had the best quantitative performance (activity recovery coefficient) but had the worst visual quality (contrast-to-noise ratio) due to high noise levels. Projection subtraction showed a slightly better visual quality than image subtraction, but also a slightly worse quantitative accuracy. Projection addition had a substantial bias in its quantitative accuracy which increased with less counts in the projections. Image addition resulted in the best visual image quality but had a quantitative bias when the two images to subtract contained opposing features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All four investigated methods of SPECT subtraction demonstrated the capacity to generate a feasible difference image from two SPECT images. Image subtraction is recommended when the user is only interested in quantitative values, whereas image addition is recommended when the user requires the best visual image quality. Since quantitative accuracy is most important for the dosimetric investigation of AT2 in radioembolization, we recommend using the image subtraction method for this purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":11559,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI Physics","volume":"11 1","pages":"72"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in radioembolization: a comparison of four methods.\",\"authors\":\"Camiel E M Kerckhaert, Hugo W A M de Jong, Marjolein B M Meddens, Rob van Rooij, Maarten L J Smits, Yothin Rakvongthai, Martijn M A Dietze\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40658-024-00675-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images has a number of clinical applications in e.g. foci localization in ictal/inter-ictal SPECT and defect detection in rest/stress cardiac SPECT. In this work, we investigated the technical performance of SPECT subtraction for the purpose of quantifying the effect of a vasoconstricting drug (angiotensin-II, or AT2) on the Tc-99m-MAA liver distribution in hepatic radioembolization using an innovative interventional hybrid C-arm scanner. Given that subtraction of SPECT images is challenging due to high noise levels and poor resolution, we compared four methods to obtain a difference image in terms of image quality and quantitative accuracy. These methods included (i) image subtraction: subtraction of independently reconstructed SPECT images, (ii) projection subtraction: reconstruction of a SPECT image from subtracted projections, (iii) projection addition: reconstruction by addition of projections as a background term during the iterative reconstruction, and (iv) image addition: simultaneous reconstruction of the difference image and the subtracted image.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Digital simulations (XCAT) and phantom studies (NEMA-IQ and anthropomorphic torso) showed that all four methods were able to generate difference images but their performance on specific metrics varied substantially. Image subtraction had the best quantitative performance (activity recovery coefficient) but had the worst visual quality (contrast-to-noise ratio) due to high noise levels. Projection subtraction showed a slightly better visual quality than image subtraction, but also a slightly worse quantitative accuracy. Projection addition had a substantial bias in its quantitative accuracy which increased with less counts in the projections. Image addition resulted in the best visual image quality but had a quantitative bias when the two images to subtract contained opposing features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All four investigated methods of SPECT subtraction demonstrated the capacity to generate a feasible difference image from two SPECT images. Image subtraction is recommended when the user is only interested in quantitative values, whereas image addition is recommended when the user requires the best visual image quality. Since quantitative accuracy is most important for the dosimetric investigation of AT2 in radioembolization, we recommend using the image subtraction method for this purpose.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJNMMI Physics\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324633/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJNMMI Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-024-00675-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-024-00675-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)图像的减影在临床上有许多应用,如发作/发作间期SPECT的病灶定位和静息/应激心脏SPECT的缺陷检测。在这项工作中,我们使用创新型介入混合 C 臂扫描仪研究了 SPECT 减影的技术性能,以量化血管收缩药物(血管紧张素-II 或 AT2)对肝脏放射性栓塞中 Tc-99m-MAA 肝脏分布的影响。鉴于 SPECT 图像的减影因噪声大和分辨率低而具有挑战性,我们比较了四种方法,以获得图像质量和定量准确性方面的差异图像。这些方法包括:(i) 图像减法:减去独立重建的 SPECT 图像;(ii) 投影减法:根据减去的投影重建 SPECT 图像;(iii) 投影加法:在迭代重建过程中将投影作为背景项加入重建;(iv) 图像加法:同时重建差值图像和减去的图像:结果:数字模拟(XCAT)和模型研究(NEMA-IQ 和拟人躯干)表明,所有四种方法都能生成差分图像,但它们在具体指标上的表现差异很大。图像减法的定量性能(活动恢复系数)最好,但由于噪声水平较高,视觉质量(对比-噪声比)最差。投影减法的视觉质量略好于图像减法,但定量准确性也略差。投影加法的定量准确性有很大偏差,随着投影中的计数减少而增加。图像加法的视觉图像质量最好,但当要减去的两幅图像包含相反的特征时,其定量准确性就会出现偏差:所有四种研究过的 SPECT 减影方法都证明了从两幅 SPECT 图像生成可行的差异图像的能力。当用户只对定量值感兴趣时,建议使用图像减法,而当用户需要最佳视觉图像质量时,建议使用图像加法。由于定量准确性对于放射性栓塞中 AT2 的剂量学研究最为重要,因此我们建议使用图像减法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in radioembolization: a comparison of four methods.

Background: Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images has a number of clinical applications in e.g. foci localization in ictal/inter-ictal SPECT and defect detection in rest/stress cardiac SPECT. In this work, we investigated the technical performance of SPECT subtraction for the purpose of quantifying the effect of a vasoconstricting drug (angiotensin-II, or AT2) on the Tc-99m-MAA liver distribution in hepatic radioembolization using an innovative interventional hybrid C-arm scanner. Given that subtraction of SPECT images is challenging due to high noise levels and poor resolution, we compared four methods to obtain a difference image in terms of image quality and quantitative accuracy. These methods included (i) image subtraction: subtraction of independently reconstructed SPECT images, (ii) projection subtraction: reconstruction of a SPECT image from subtracted projections, (iii) projection addition: reconstruction by addition of projections as a background term during the iterative reconstruction, and (iv) image addition: simultaneous reconstruction of the difference image and the subtracted image.

Results: Digital simulations (XCAT) and phantom studies (NEMA-IQ and anthropomorphic torso) showed that all four methods were able to generate difference images but their performance on specific metrics varied substantially. Image subtraction had the best quantitative performance (activity recovery coefficient) but had the worst visual quality (contrast-to-noise ratio) due to high noise levels. Projection subtraction showed a slightly better visual quality than image subtraction, but also a slightly worse quantitative accuracy. Projection addition had a substantial bias in its quantitative accuracy which increased with less counts in the projections. Image addition resulted in the best visual image quality but had a quantitative bias when the two images to subtract contained opposing features.

Conclusion: All four investigated methods of SPECT subtraction demonstrated the capacity to generate a feasible difference image from two SPECT images. Image subtraction is recommended when the user is only interested in quantitative values, whereas image addition is recommended when the user requires the best visual image quality. Since quantitative accuracy is most important for the dosimetric investigation of AT2 in radioembolization, we recommend using the image subtraction method for this purpose.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EJNMMI Physics
EJNMMI Physics Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EJNMMI Physics is an international platform for scientists, users and adopters of nuclear medicine with a particular interest in physics matters. As a companion journal to the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, this journal has a multi-disciplinary approach and welcomes original materials and studies with a focus on applied physics and mathematics as well as imaging systems engineering and prototyping in nuclear medicine. This includes physics-driven approaches or algorithms supported by physics that foster early clinical adoption of nuclear medicine imaging and therapy.
期刊最新文献
Count-rate management in 131I SPECT/CT calibration. Correction: Radiopharmacokinetic modelling and radiation dose assessment of 223Ra used for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Exhalation of Rn-219 by patients treated with Radium-223. Quantitative accuracy of preclinical in ovo PET/MRI: influence of attenuation and quantification methods. AI-based automatic patient positioning in a digital-BGO PET/CT scanner: efficacy and impact.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1