Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1795105
Original Article

Elucidation of FDG-PET Imaging Characteristics that Reflect the Heterogeneity within Tumors Due to Variability in Metabolic Activity: A Phantom Study

Junpei Suzuki
1   Department of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Health Science, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Keisuke Tsuda
1   Department of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Health Science, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kazuya Koyama
1   Department of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Health Science, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Tomoya Harada
2   Department of Radiology, LSI Sapporo Clinic, Hokkaido, Japan
,
Shota Takemoto
3   Department of Radiology, Juntendo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Satoshi Kimura
3   Department of Radiology, Juntendo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Koji Murakami
3   Department of Radiology, Juntendo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, grant number JP22K07259.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Focusing on the heterogeneity within cancer lesions and revealing cancer lesions with a high signal-to-noise ratio will help improve the quality of positron emission tomography (PET) images. This study aimed to understand how glucose metabolic activity can be shown with less statistical noise using a quality assessment phantom modeled after cancer lesions with a two-layer structure and a Clear adaptive Low-noise Method (CaLM) filter.

Materials and Methods A National Electrical Manufacturers Association phantom with two spheres with a two-layer structure filled with 2-deoxy-2[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (inner and outer diameters of the spheres were 13/22 and 22/37 mm, respectively; radioactivity ratio of the background [BG] to outer sphere layer was 1:4; and BG-to-inner sphere layer ratios were 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3) was evaluated. The acquisition time was set at 120 seconds, and imaging was repeated five times. The image data in photomultiplier tube (PMT)-PET were reconstructed using a time-of-flight (TOF) ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm (point spread function [PSF] − , iteration: 3, subset: 10) with a 4-mm Gaussian filter (GF) for normal images. Silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-PET data were reconstructed using a TOF OSEM algorithm (PSF − , iteration: 2, subset: 12) and a 3-mm GF for normal images. The target images were reconstructed using three CaLM parameters (mild, standard, and strong). All the obtained images were investigated quantitatively, with calculation of maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), coefficient of variation (CV), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), after setting regions of interest on the lesions. Statistical analysis using the Dunnett's test compared normal images (control group) and target images (treatment group). Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05.

Results Quantitative assessment revealed that the SUVmax of target images (standard and strong) was equivalent to that of normal images in PMT-PET, with SUVmax of 3 to 3.5 for both layers. The SUVmax in SiPM-PET was similar across all CaLM types, ranging from 3 to 4 for all spheres. The target images (standard and strong) had a significantly reduced CV and improved CNR compared with normal images.

Conclusion The boundary of the 22/37-mm spheres was visible with CaLM (strong) at radioactivity ratios of 1:4:1 and 1:4:2 on both scanners. For the 13/22-mm sphere boundary, visibility with CaLM (strong) was observed only with SiPM-PET, with the SUVmax equivalent to normal images. CaLM (strong) was deemed the optimal postprocessing filter for PMT-PET due to significant improvements in CV and CNR, while CaLM (standard) was suggested as the optimal filter for SiPM-PET due to excessive BG smoothing.

Keywords

silicon photomultipliers-positron emission tomography - statistical noise reduction - postprocessing filter - heterogeneity - partial volume effect

Authors' Contributions

J.S. and K.T. contributed to the concepts and literature search. All authors contributed to the design, definition of intellectual content, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. J.S., K.T., and K.K. contributed to the data analysis and statistical analysis. J.S., K.T., K.K., T.H., S.T., and S.K. contributed to the experimental studies and data acquisition. K.T. is the guarantor.




Publication History

Article published online:
19 November 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Caribé PRRV, Koole M, D'Asseler Y, Van Den Broeck B, Vandenberghe S. Noise reduction using a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner. EJNMMI Phys 2019; 6 (01) 22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Tsuda K, Suzuki T, Toya K, Sato E, Fujii H. 3D-OSEM versus FORE + OSEM: optimal reconstruction algorithm for FDG PET with a short acquisition time. World J Nucl Med 2023; 22 (03) 234-243
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Hofheinz F, Langner J, Beuthien-Baumann B. et al. Suitability of bilateral filtering for edge-preserving noise reduction in PET. EJNMMI Res 2011; 1 (01) 23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Arabi H, Zaidi H. Spatially guided nonlocal mean approach for denoising of PET images. Med Phys 2020; 47 (04) 1656-1669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Arabi H, Zaidi H. Non-local mean denoising using multiple PET reconstructions. Ann Nucl Med 2021; 35 (02) 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Shirakawa Y, Matsutomo N, Suyama J. Feasibility of noise-reduction reconstruction technology based on non-local-mean principle in SiPM-PET/CT. Phys Med 2024; 119: 103303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Xu Z, Gao M, Papadakis GZ. et al. Joint solution for PET image segmentation, denoising, and partial volume correction. Med Image Anal 2018; 46: 229-243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Shirakawa Y, Matsutomo N. Impact of list-mode reconstruction and image-space point spread function correction on PET image contrast and quantitative value using SiPM-based PET/CT system. Radiol Phys Technol 2023; 16 (03) 384-396
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Dutta J, Leahy RM, Li Q. Non-local means denoising of dynamic PET images. PLoS One 2013; 8 (12) e81390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Tsutsui Y, Awamoto S, Himuro K, Kato T, Baba S, Sasaki M. Evaluating and comparing the image quality and quantification accuracy of SiPM-PET/CT and PMT-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2020; 34 (10) 725-735
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Wagatsuma K, Sakata M, Ishibashi K. et al. Direct comparison of brain [18F]FDG images acquired by SiPM-based and PMT-based PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. EJNMMI Phys 2020; 7 (01) 70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Salvadori J, Odille F, Karcher G, Marie PY, Imbert L. Fully digital PET is unaffected by any deterioration in TOF resolution and TOF image quality in the wide range of routine PET count rates. EJNMMI Phys 2021; 8 (01) 1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hashimoto N, Morita K, Tsutsui Y, Himuro K, Baba S, Sasaki M. Time-of-flight information improved the detectability of subcentimeter spheres using a clinical PET/CT scanner. J Nucl Med Technol 2018; 46 (03) 268-273
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Nishida H. et al. Influence of statistical fluctuation on reproducibility and accuracy of SUVmax and SUVpeak: a phantom study. J Nucl Med Technol 2015; 43 (03) 222-226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kolinger GD, García DV, Kramer GM. et al. Effects of tracer uptake time in non-small cell lung cancer 18F-FDG PET radiomics. J Nucl Med 2022; 63 (06) 919-924
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pinho DF, King B, Xi Y, Albuquerque K, Lea J, Subramaniam RM. Value of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity and quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters in predicting prognosis for patients with cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214 (04) 908-916
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Dagogo-Jack I, Shaw AT. Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018; 15 (02) 81-94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Soussan M, Orlhac F, Boubaya M. et al. Relationship between tumor heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. PLoS One 2014; 9 (04) e94017
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Furukawa T, Yuan Q, Jin ZH. et al. A limited overlap between intratumoral distribution of 1-(5-fluoro-5-deoxy-α-D-arabinofuranosyl)-2-nitroimidazole and copper-diacetyl-bis[N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone]. Oncol Rep 2015; 34 (03) 1379-1387
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kazuya K, Hiroaki S, Keisuke T. et al. The validation of optimal Gaussian filter using double sphere phantom. Japanese J Education Radiological Technology 2017; 5: 19-23
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Marquis H, Willowson KP, Bailey DL. Partial volume effect in SPECT & PET imaging and impact on radionuclide dosimetry estimates. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol 2023; 11 (01) 44-54
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kaneta T, Ogawa M, Motomura N. et al. Initial evaluation of the Celesteion large-bore PET/CT scanner in accordance with the NEMA NU2-2012 standard and the Japanese guideline for oncology FDG PET/CT data acquisition protocol version 2.0. EJNMMI Res 2017; 7 (01) 83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Zhang G, Li J, Wang X. et al. The reverse Warburg effect and 18F-FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer A549 in mice: a pilot study. J Nucl Med 2015; 56 (04) 607-612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar