Edge Artifacts in Point Spread Function-based PET Reconstruction in Relation to Object Size and Reconstruction Parameters

Document Type: Original Article


1 Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

2 Department of Clinical Radiology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

3 Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan


Objective(s): We evaluated edge artifacts in relation to phantom diameter and reconstruction parameters in point spread function (PSF)-based positron emission tomography (PET) image reconstruction.
Methods: PET data were acquired from an original cone-shaped phantom filled with 18F solution (21.9 kBq/mL) for 10 min using a Biograph mCT scanner. The images were reconstructed using the baseline ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm and the OSEM with PSF correction model. The reconstruction parameters included a pixel size of 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 mm, 1-12 iterations, 24 subsets, and a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the post-filter Gaussian filter of 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 mm. We compared both the maximum recovery coefficient (RCmax) and the mean recovery coefficient (RCmean) in the phantom at different diameters.
Results: The OSEM images had no edge artifacts, but the OSEM with PSF images had a dense edge delineating the hot phantom at diameters 10 mm or more and a dense spot at the center at diameters of 8 mm or less. The dense edge was clearly observed on images with a small pixel size, a Gaussian filter with a small FWHM, and a high number of iterations. At a phantom diameter of 6-7 mm, the RCmax for the OSEM and OSEM with PSF images was 60% and 140%, respectively (pixel size: 1.0 mm; FWHM of the Gaussian filter: 2.0 mm; iterations: 2). The RCmean of the OSEM with PSF images did not exceed 100%.
Conclusion: PSF-based image reconstruction resulted in edge artifacts, the degree of which depends on the pixel size, number of iterations, FWHM of the Gaussian filter, and object size.


Main Subjects

  1. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480-508.
  2. Poeppel TD, Krause BJ, Heusner TA, Boy C, Bockisch A, Antoch G. PET/CT for the staging and follow-up of patients with malignancies. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(3):382-92.
  3. Ben-Haim S, Ell P. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(1):88-99.
  4. Riddell C, Carson RE, Carrasquillo JA, Libutti SK, Danforth DN, Whatley M, et al. Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(9):1316-23.
  5. Alessio AM, Kinahan PE, Lewellen TK. Modeling and incorporation of system response functions in 3-D whole body PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25(7):828–37.
  6. Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25(7):907-21.
  7. Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model of PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(3):938-49.
  8. Lee K, Kinahan PE, Fessler JA, Miyaoka RS, Janes M, Lewellen TK. Pragmatic fully 3D image reconstruction for the MiCES mouse imaging PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(19):4563-78.
  9. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of poin-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1716-22.
  10. Thielemans K, Asma E, Ahn S, Manjeshwar RM, Deller T, Ross SG, et al. Impact of PSF modelling on the convergence rate and edge behaviour of EM images in PET. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), Knoxville, TN, USA; 13 June 2011. P. 3267-72.
  11. Rahmima A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40(6):64301.
  12. Bai B, Esser PD. The effect of edge artifacts on quantification of positron emission tomography. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/ MIC), Knoxville, TN, USA; 13 June 2011. P. 2263-6.
  13. Wiant D, Gersh JA, Bennett M, Bourland JD. Evaluation of the spatial dependence of the point spread function in 2D PET image reconstruction using LOR-OSEM. Med Phys. 2010;37(3):1169-82.
  14. Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G, Mikasa S, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, et al. The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(2):97-103.
  15. Tong S, Alessio AM, Thielemans K, Stearns C, Ross S, Kinahan PE. Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58(5):2264-75.
  16. Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing recon-struction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1(1):16.
  17. Lanson C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):985-96.
  18. Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):862-9.
  19. Armstrong IS, Kelly MD, Williams HA, Matthews JC. Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies. EJNMMI Phys. 2014;1(1):99-116.
  20. Aklan B, Oehmigen M, Beiderwellen K, Ruhlmann M, Paulus DH, Jakoby BW, et al. Impact of point-spread function (PSF) modeling on PET image quality in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(1):78-84.
  21. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Ishikawa K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Benefits of point-spread-function and time-of-flight for PET/CT image quality in relation to the body mass index and injected dose. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(6):407-12.