Quality control plays an increasingly important role in quantitative PET imaging and is typically performed using phantoms. The purpose of this work was to develop and validate a fully-automated analysis method for two common PET/CT quality assurance phantoms: the NEMA NU-2 IQ and SNMMI/CTN oncology phantom. The algorithm was designed to only utilize the PET scan to enable the analysis of phantoms with thin-walled inserts.
We introduce a model-based method for automated analysis of phantoms with spherical inserts. Models are first constructed for each type of phantom to be analyzed. A robust insert detection algorithm uses the model to locate all inserts inside the phantom. First, candidates for inserts are detected using a scale-space detection approach. Second, candidates are given an initial label using a score-based optimization algorithm. Third, a robust model fitting step aligns the phantom model to the initial labeling and fixes incorrect labels. Finally, the detected insert locations are refined and measurements are taken for each insert and several background regions. In addition, an approach for automated selection of NEMA and CTN phantom models is presented. The method was evaluated on a diverse set of 15 NEMA and 20 CTN phantom PET/CT scans. NEMA phantoms were filled with radioactive tracer solution at 9.7:1 activity ratio over background, and CTN phantoms were filled with 4:1 and 2:1 activity ratio over background. For quantitative evaluation, an independent reference standard was generated by two experts using PET/CT scans of the phantoms. In addition, the automated approach was compared against manual analysis, which represents the current clinical standard approach, of the PET phantom scans by four experts.
The automated analysis method successfully detected and measured all inserts in all test phantom scans. It is a deterministic algorithm (zero variability), and the insert detection RMS error (i.e., bias) was 0.97, 1.12, and 1.48 mm for phantom activity ratios 9.7:1, 4:1, and 2:1, respectively. For all phantoms and at all contrast ratios, the average RMS error was found to be significantly lower for the proposed automated method compared to the manual analysis of the phantom scans. The uptake measurements produced by the automated method showed high correlation with the independent reference standard (R(2) ≥ 0.9987). In addition, the average computing time for the automated method was 30.6 seconds and was found to be significantly lower (p ≪ 0.001) compared to manual analysis (mean: 247.8 seconds).
The proposed automated approach was found to have less error when measured against the independent reference than the manual approach. It can be easily adapted to other phantoms with spherical inserts. In addition, it eliminates inter- and intra-operator variability in PET phantom analysis and is significantly more time efficient, and therefore, represents a promising approach to facilitate and simplify PET standardization and harmonization efforts. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,597,003
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,363
of 7,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,424
of 447,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#44
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,861 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
