ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF IMAGE MATCHING IN PET / CT AND ANALYSIS OF HYBRID IMAGING PROBLEMS IN RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING

The reliability of obtaining qualitative and quantitative information in positron emission tomography depends on the level of depth of quality control of the diagnostic image. Given the active application of the procedure for planning radiation therapy using positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography, an urgent task is to assess the accuracy of combining the modalities of diagnostic images. In this work, we estimated the discrepancy between the volumes of the radiopharmaceutical accumulation foci (when combining PET and CT modalities of images) using a computer-based radiation therapy planning system. The influence of additional factors that may affect the correct combination of images is considered: time-of-flight technology, the number of subsets (the number of free projections used during reconstruction). The functional dependences of the discrepancy between the volumes of modalities (PET and CT images) on the volume of potential foci of accumulation (which are used as hot spheres) of the radiopharmaceutical preparation are obtained. The discrepancy between the diameters of the spheres measured on a CT image with the real diameters of the spheres is estimated.

quality control, protocol, quality assurance, phantom, image, positron emission tomograph, computed tomograph

1. Pablo Galve, Jose Manuel Udias, Alejandro Lopez-Montes, and Joaquín L. Herraiz “Super-iterative image reconstruction in PET”, Proc. SPIE 11072, 15th International Meeting on Fully Three-Dimensional Image Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 110722B (28 May 2019).

2. Kiebel, S.J., Ashburner, J., Poline, J.-B., Friston, K.J., 1997. MRI and PET coregistration—a cross validation of statistical parametric mapping and automated image registration. NeuroImage 5, 271–279.

3. W. Wang, Z. Hu, E. E. Gualtieri, M. J. Parma, E. S. Walsh, D. Sebok, Y.-L. Hsieh, C.-H. Tung, X.Song, J. J. Griesmer, J. A. Kolthammer, L. M. Popescu, M. Werner, J. S. Karp and D. Gagnon, Systematic and Distributed Time-of-Flight List Mode PET Reconstruction, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2006.

4. Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):3. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3.

5. Queiroz MA, Delso G, Wollenweber S, Deller T, Zeimpekis K, Huellner M, et al. (2015) Dose Optimization in TOF-PET/MR Compared to TOF- PET/CT.//PLoS ONE 10(7):e0128842. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128842.

6. Clinical advantage of PET/CT (hardware fusion image) [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292420280_Clinical_advantage_of_PETCT_hardware_fusion_image. – Дата доступа: 03.04.2020.

7. Alessio A., Kinaham P, Lewellen T. Improved quantitation for PET/CT image reconstruction with system modelling and anatomical priors // SPIE Medical Imaging. San Diego. 2005.

8. Pixel-Feature Hybrid Fusion for PET/CT Images | SpringerLink [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10278-009-9259-8. – Дата доступа: 03.04.2020.

9. Positron Emission Tomography for Radiation Treatment Planning // Strahlenther Onkol 181. – 2005 – P. 483–499.

10. Jaszczak SPECT Phantom – PET Phantoms – PET Positron Emission Tomography – Nuclear Medicine | Biodex [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://www.biodex.com/nuclear-medicine/products/pet-positron-emission-tomography/pet-phantoms/jaszczak-spect-phantom. – Дата доступа: 03.04.2020.

11. Тарутин И.Г., Хоружик С.А., Чиж Г.В. Протокол контроля качества работы рентгеновских компьютерных томографов (инструкция по применению). Утверждена МЗ РБ 26.06.2006 г., регистрационный № 192 – 1205. Минск: ГУ НИИ онкологии и медицинской радиологии им. Н.Н. Александрова. 2006.