EJNMMI Physics (May 2022)

Clinical and phantom validation of a deep learning based denoising algorithm for F-18-FDG PET images from lower detection counting in comparison with the standard acquisition

  • Gerald Bonardel,
  • Axel Dupont,
  • Pierre Decazes,
  • Mathieu Queneau,
  • Romain Modzelewski,
  • Jeremy Coulot,
  • Nicolas Le Calvez,
  • Sébastien Hapdey

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-022-00465-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 1
pp. 1 – 23

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background PET/CT image quality is directly influenced by the F-18-FDG injected activity. The higher the injected activity, the less noise in the reconstructed images but the more radioactive staff exposition. A new FDA cleared software has been introduced to obtain clinical PET images, acquired at 25% of the count statistics considering US practices. Our aim is to determine the limits of a deep learning based denoising algorithm (SubtlePET) applied to statistically reduced PET raw data from 3 different last generation PET scanners in comparison to the regular acquisition in phantom and patients, considering the European guidelines for radiotracer injection activities. Images of low and high contrasted (SBR = 2 and 5) spheres of the IEC phantom and high contrast (SBR = 5) of micro-spheres of Jaszczak phantom were acquired on 3 different PET devices. 110 patients with different pathologies were included. The data was acquired in list-mode and retrospectively reconstructed with the regular acquisition count statistic (PET100), 50% reduction in counts (PET50) and 66% reduction in counts (PET33). These count reduced images were post-processed with SubtlePET to obtain PET50 + SP and PET33 + SP images. Patient image quality was scored by 2 senior nuclear physicians. Peak-signal-to-Noise and Structural similarity metrics were computed to compare the low count images to regular acquisition (PET100). Results SubtlePET reliably denoised the images and maintained the SUVmax values in PET50 + SP. SubtlePET enhanced images (PET33 + SP) had slightly increased noise compared to PET100 and could lead to a potential loss of information in terms of lesion detectability. Regarding the patient datasets, the PET100 and PET50 + SP were qualitatively comparable. The SubtlePET algorithm was able to correctly recover the SUVmax values of the lesions and maintain a noise level equivalent to full-time images. Conclusion Based on our results, SubtlePET is adapted in clinical practice for half-time or half-dose acquisitions based on European recommended injected dose of 3 MBq/kg without diagnostic confidence loss.

Keywords