skip to main content

Title: Using compressive sensing to recover images from PET scanners with partial detector rings

Purpose: Most positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scanners consist of tightly packed discrete detector rings to improve scanner efficiency. The authors’ aim was to use compressive sensing (CS) techniques in PET imaging to investigate the possibility of decreasing the number of detector elements per ring (introducing gaps) while maintaining image quality. Methods: A CS model based on a combination of gradient magnitude and wavelet domains (wavelet-TV) was developed to recover missing observations in PET data acquisition. The model was designed to minimize the total variation (TV) and L1-norm of wavelet coefficients while constrained by the partially observed data. The CS model also incorporated a Poisson noise term that modeled the observed noise while suppressing its contribution by penalizing the Poisson log likelihood function. Three experiments were performed to evaluate the proposed CS recovery algorithm: a simulation study, a phantom study, and six patient studies. The simulation dataset comprised six disks of various sizes in a uniform background with an activity concentration of 5:1. The simulated image was multiplied by the system matrix to obtain the corresponding sinogram and then Poisson noise was added. The resultant sinogram was masked to create the effect of partial detector removal and then the proposedmore » CS algorithm was applied to recover the missing PET data. In addition, different levels of noise were simulated to assess the performance of the proposed algorithm. For the phantom study, an IEC phantom with six internal spheres each filled with F-18 at an activity-to-background ratio of 10:1 was used. The phantom was imaged twice on a RX PET/CT scanner: once with all detectors operational (baseline) and once with four detector blocks (11%) turned off at each of 0 °, 90 °, 180 °, and 270° (partially sampled). The partially acquired sinograms were then recovered using the proposed algorithm. For the third test, PET images from six patient studies were investigated using the same strategy of the phantom study. The recovered images using WTV and TV as well as the partially sampled images from all three experiments were then compared with the fully sampled images (the baseline). Comparisons were done by calculating the mean error (%bias), root mean square error (RMSE), contrast recovery (CR), and SNR of activity concentration in regions of interest drawn in the background as well as the disks, spheres, and lesions. Results: For the simulation study, the mean error, RMSE, and CR for the WTV (TV) recovered images were 0.26% (0.48%), 2.6% (2.9%), 97% (96%), respectively, when compared to baseline. For the partially sampled images, these results were 22.5%, 45.9%, and 64%, respectively. For the simulation study, the average SNR for the baseline was 41.7 while for WTV (TV), recovered image was 44.2 (44.0). The phantom study showed similar trends with 5.4% (18.2%), 15.6% (18.8%), and 78% (60%), respectively, for the WTV (TV) images and 33%, 34.3%, and 69% for the partially sampled images. For the phantom study, the average SNR for the baseline was 14.7 while for WTV (TV) recovered image was 13.7 (11.9). Finally, the average of these values for the six patient studies for the WTV-recovered, TV, and partially sampled images was 1%, 7.2%, 92% and 1.3%, 15.1%, 87%, and 27%, 25.8%, 45%, respectively. Conclusions: CS with WTV is capable of recovering PET images with good quantitative accuracy from partially sampled data. Such an approach can be used to potentially reduce the cost of scanners while maintaining good image quality.« less
Authors:
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [3]
  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005 and Department of Imaging Physics Unit 1352, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030 (United States)
  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005 (United States)
  3. Department of Imaging Physics Unit 1352, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030 (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22413368
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ALGORITHMS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; CONCENTRATION RATIO; DATA ACQUISITION; ERRORS; FLUORINE 18; POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY