Comparison of TOF and PSF PET image reconstruction technology’s influence on quantitative parameters of tumor lesions
1. Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital Affiliated to China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China;
2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tianjin Tumour Hospital, Tianjin 300060, China;
3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region People’s Hospital, Hohhot 010017, China
摘要目的：对比分析TOF-PET和PSF-PET重建技术对全身不同部位及不同大小恶性肿瘤病灶18F-FDG代谢参数的影响。资料与方法：回顾性分析多中心原发恶性肿瘤接受18F-FDG PET/CT全身扫描病例共270例，男121例，女149例，平均年龄（59.07±11.82）岁（29~87岁）；体质量指数（BMI）为23.92±3.35（16.61~34.34）；胸部、腹部、盆腔及浅表部位恶性肿瘤分别为97、62、104和9例；病灶直径（Dmax）为（4.16±2.27） cm（0.5~15.2 cm）。将PET/CT数据VUE Point HD、TOF+VUE Point HD、SharpIR+VUE Point HD及TOF+SharpIR+VUE Point HD分别进行重建，其中VUE Point HD（GE Healthcare）为三维迭代重建技术，SharpIR（GE Healthcare）是基于PSF技术原理的PET图像重建技术。应用AW工作站PET VCAR软件进行图像处理及测量18F-FDG代谢参数（SULmean、SULmax、SUVmean、SUVmax）并计算变化率（%）。应用独立样本t检验及One-way ANOVA分析TOF、PSF与TOF+PSF组代谢参数变化率的比较。结果：TOF和PSF对所有恶性肿瘤病灶的代谢参数均有提高，以TOF+PSF组最为显著。对于胸部病灶，PSF对SUVmax提高的百分比明显优于TOF，为8.96% vs 5.26%（P<0.05）；对于浅表部位病灶，PSF对SULmax、SUVmean及SUVmax提高的百分比明显优于TOF，分别为9.22% vs 1.22%、8.56% vs 1.78%及9.33% vs 1.11%（P<0.05）；对于盆腔病灶，TOF对SULmax、SUVmax提高的百分比则优于PSF，分别为18.72% vs 12.29%与20.69% vs 15.41%（P<0.05）；对于腹部病灶，TOF与PSF代谢指标提高无明显差异（P>0.05）。BMI>25组，TOF对SULmax、SUVmax提高的百分比也优于PSF，分别为10.45% vs 6.16%与10.27% vs 6.43%（P<0.05）。Dmax≤2.0 cm组，PSF对SUVmax提高的百分比明显优于TOF，为11.68% vs 4.78%（P<0.05）。对于BMI<25组及Dmax>2.0 cm组，两者对代谢参数的提高无明显差异。结论：联合TOF+PSF组重建技术能显著提高恶性肿瘤病灶代谢参数，对于胸部、浅表部位病灶及较小病灶，PSF明显优于TOF；对于盆腔病灶及BMI>25的患者TOF具有优势。
Abstract：Objective: To contrastively analyze the effect of TOF-PET and PSF-PET reconstruction technique for 18F-FDG metabolic parameter of different part of the body and different of malignant lesions. Materials and methods: To analyze respectively 270 cases of 18F-FDG PET/CT-treated primary malignant tumor infected individuals in several hospitals, 121 male patients and 149 female patients with an average age of 59.07±11.82(29~87 years old), 23.92±3.35(16.61~34.34) of BMI, 97 cases of chest tumor, 62 of abdominal tumor, 104 of pelvic tumor and 9 of superficial tumor, and (4.16±2.27) cm(0.5~15.2 cm) of Dmax. Reconstruct the PET/CT data according to VUE Point HD, TOF+VUE Point HD, SharpIR+VUE Point HD and TOF+SharpIR+VUE Point HD were done, in which VUE Point HD(GE Healthcare) is 3D iteration reconstruction technique and SharpIR(GE Healthcare) is the PET image reconstruction technique based on PSF technology. We used the PET VCAR on AW station for image processing and measurement of 18F-FDG metabolic parameter(SULmean, SULmax, SUVmean, SUVmax) to calculate the change rate(%). We used independent sample to analyze the comparation of change rate of TOF, PSF and TOF+PSF parameters. Result: Both TOF and PSF are useful to improve the metabolic parameters of all malignant lesions, and TOF+PSF is the most significant. For chest lesions, PSF is superior to TOF to the improve SUVmax, 8.96% vs 5.26%(P<0.05), which is similar in superfacial lesions. Improvement of SULmax, SUVmean and SUVmax by PSF is better than that by TOF, which is 9.22% vs 1.22%, 8.56% vs 1.78% and 9.33% vs 1.11%(P<0.05). But for pelvic lesions, TOF is superior to PSF to improve SULmax and SUVmax, which is 18.72% vs 12.29% and 20.69% vs 15.41%(P<0.05). For abdominal lesions, there is no significant difference in Metabolic index increase between TOF and PSF(P>0.05). When BMI>25, improvement of SULmax and SUVmax by TOF is better than that by PSF, which is 10.45% vs 6.16% and 10.27% vs 6.43% respectively(P<0.05). But when Dmax≤2.0 cm, PSF is significantly superior to TOF to improve SUVmax, which is 11.68% vs 4.78%(P<0.05). When BMI<25 and Dmax>2.0 cm, no difference appeare between them. Conclusion: Both TOF and PSF can improve the metabolic parameter of malignant lesions and TOF+PSF is the most significant one. But as for chest and superfacial lesions, especially for smaller lesions, PSF is obviously better than TOF. On the contrary, for pelvic lesions, when BMI>25, TOF has more advantage.
王 娇1，朱佳研2，徐文贵2，吕 达3，刘举珍3，辛 军1. 比较TOF和PSF PET图像重建技术对肿瘤病灶定量参数的影响[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2017, 28(8): 580-583.
WANG Jiao1, ZHU Jia-yan2, XU Wen-gui2, LV Da3, LIU Ju-zhen3, XIN Jun1. Comparison of TOF and PSF PET image reconstruction technology’s influence on quantitative parameters of tumor lesions. JOURNAL OF CHINA MEDICAL IMAGING, 2017, 28(8): 580-583.
[1]Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters[J]. J Nucl Med, 2012, 53(11): 1716-1722.
[2]朱虹，罗岚. PET/CT正电子成像新技术[J]. 中国医疗器械信息，2009，15（9）：10-13.
[3]王文艇，钱锋. PET/CT技术进展[J]. 中国医疗设备，2009，24（8）：1-4.
[4]辛军，赵周社，陆喆，等. 比较TOF-PET和PSF-PET图像重建技术在临床中的应用价值[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志，2012，23（8）：568-572.
[5]Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, et al. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2013, 38(2): 103-109.
[6]胡娜，吴永港，肖立志，等. 18F-FDG PET/CT代谢活性参数及其在淋巴瘤的应用[J]. 国际放射医学核医学杂志，2005，39（4）：342-347.
[7]Shao X, Shao X, Wang X, et al. Applications of both time of flight and point spread function in brain PET image reconstruction[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2016, 37(4): 422-427.
[8]Taniguchi T, Akamatsu G, Kasahara Y, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality in overweight patients with PSF and TOF[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2015, 29(1): 71-77.
[9]Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G, et al. The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2016, 30(2): 97-103.
[10]Nagaki A, Onoguchi M, Matsutomo N. Clinical validation of high-resolution image reconstruction algorithms in brain 18F-FDG-PET: effect of incorporating Gaussian filter, point spread function, and time-of-flight[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2014, 35(12): 1224-1232.
