Timing calibration comparison research of integrated TOF-PET/MR_Journal of Biomedical Engineering

Authors：

ZENG Tianyi ^1,2 , YANG Hui ³ , CAO Tuoyu ³ , HU Lingzhi ³ , CHU Xu ³ , LU Xinyu ³ ,  CHEN Qun ^1,3

1. Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201210, P.R.China;
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P.R.China;
3. Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201807, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

CHEN Qun, Email: qun.chen@sari.ac.cn

Keywords：

integrated TOF-PET/MR; timing calibration; fan-beam; norm minimization

DOI：

10.7507/1001-5515.201809044

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Integrated TOF-PET/MR is a multimodal imaging system which can acquire high-quality magnetic resonance (MR) and positron emission tomography (PET) images at the same time, and it has time of flight (TOF) function. The TOF-PET system usually features better image quality compared to traditional PET because it is capable of localizing the lesion on the line of response where annihilation takes place. TOF technology measures the time difference between the detectors on which the two 180-degrees-seperated photons generated from positron annihilation are received. Since every individual crystal might be prone to its timing bias, timing calibration is needed for a TOF-PET system to work properly. Three approaches of timing calibration are introduced in this article. The first one named as fan-beam method is an iterative method that measures the bias of the Gaussian distribution of timing offset created from a fan-beam area constructed using geometric techniques. The second one is to find solutions of the overdetermination equations set using L1 norm minimization and is called L1-norm method. The last one called L2-norm method is to build histogram of the TOF and find the peak, and uses L2 norm minimization to get the result. This article focuses on the comparison of the amount of the data and the calculation time needed by each of the three methods. To avoid location error of the cylinder radioactive source during data collection, we developed a location calibration algorithm which could calculate accurate position of the source and reduce image artifacts. The experiment results indicate that the three approaches introduced in this article could enhance the qualities of PET images and standardized uptake values of cancer regions, so the timing calibration of integrated TOF-PET/MR system was realized. The fan-beam method has the best image quality, especially in small lesions. In integrated TOF-PET/MR timing calibration, we recommend using fan-beam method.

Citation： ZENG Tianyi, YANG Hui, CAO Tuoyu, HU Lingzhi, CHU Xu, LU Xinyu, CHEN Qun. Timing calibration comparison research of integrated TOF-PET/MR. Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 2019, 36(6): 1003-1011. doi: 10.7507/1001-5515.201809044 Copy

1.	Newport D F. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med, 2008, 14(4): 459-465.
2.	祝安惠, 张燕燕. 一体化PET/MR应用进展. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2018, 15(1): 51-54.
3.	Surti S, Karp J S. Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol, 2009, 54(2): 373-384.
4.	吴文凯, 赵周社. PET飞行时间技术的现状和再认识. 中华核医学杂志, 2011, 31(5): 354-356.
5.	Werner M E, Karp J S. TOF PET offset calibration from clinical data. Phys Med Biol, 2013, 58(12): 4031-4046.
6.	Thompson C J, Camborde M L, Casey M E. A central positron source to perform the timing alignment of detectors in a PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2005, 52(5): 1300-1304.
7.	Lenox M W, Gremillion T, Miller S, et al. Coincidence time alignment for planar pixellated positron emission tomography detector arrays// 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. San Diego: IEEE, 2002: 1952-1954.
8.	Lenox M W, Atkins B E, Pressley D R, et al. Digital time alignment of high resolution PET inveon block detectors// 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. San Diego: IEEE, 2006: 2450-2453.
9.	Luo D, Williams J J, Limkeman M K, et al. Crystal-based coincidence timing calibration for PET scanner// 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Norfolk: IEEE, 2002: 1676-1680.
10.	Freese D L, Hsu D F C, Innes D, et al. Robust timing calibration for PET using L1-norm minimization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2017, 36(7): 1418-1426.
11.	Boyd S, Parikh N, Chu E, et al. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2011, 3(1): 1-122.
12.	Li Hongdi, Wang Chao, An Shaohui, et al. A fast and accurate timing alignment method with TDC linearity calibration for a high-resolution TOF-PET// 2013 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Seoul: IEEE, 2014: 1-4..
13.	Reynolds P D, Olcott P D, Pratx G, et al. Convex optimization of coincidence time resolution for high resolution PET systems// 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Dresden: IEEE, 2008: 4068-4073.
14.	Fong C L, Saunders M. LSMR: An iterative algorithm for sparse least-squares problems. Siam J Sci Comput, 2010, 33(5): 2950-2971.
15.	Hudson H M, Larkin R S. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 1994, 13(4): 601-609.
16.	Huang S C. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol, 2000, 27(7): 643-646.
17.	Lewellen T K. Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med, 1998, 28(3): 268.
18.	Moses W W. Time of flight in PET revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2003, 50(5): 1325-1330.
19.	Grant A M, Deller T W, Khalighi M M, et al. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys, 2016, 43(5): 233492443.
20.	Minamimoto R, Levin C, Jamali M, et al. Improvements in PET image quality in time of flight (TOF) simultaneous PET/MRI. Mol Imaging Biol, 2016, 18(5): 776-781.

1. Newport D F. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med, 2008, 14(4): 459-465.
2. 祝安惠, 张燕燕. 一体化PET/MR应用进展. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2018, 15(1): 51-54.
3. Surti S, Karp J S. Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol, 2009, 54(2): 373-384.
4. 吴文凯, 赵周社. PET飞行时间技术的现状和再认识. 中华核医学杂志, 2011, 31(5): 354-356.
5. Werner M E, Karp J S. TOF PET offset calibration from clinical data. Phys Med Biol, 2013, 58(12): 4031-4046.
6. Thompson C J, Camborde M L, Casey M E. A central positron source to perform the timing alignment of detectors in a PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2005, 52(5): 1300-1304.
7. Lenox M W, Gremillion T, Miller S, et al. Coincidence time alignment for planar pixellated positron emission tomography detector arrays// 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. San Diego: IEEE, 2002: 1952-1954.
8. Lenox M W, Atkins B E, Pressley D R, et al. Digital time alignment of high resolution PET inveon block detectors// 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. San Diego: IEEE, 2006: 2450-2453.
9. Luo D, Williams J J, Limkeman M K, et al. Crystal-based coincidence timing calibration for PET scanner// 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Norfolk: IEEE, 2002: 1676-1680.
10. Freese D L, Hsu D F C, Innes D, et al. Robust timing calibration for PET using L1-norm minimization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 2017, 36(7): 1418-1426.
11. Boyd S, Parikh N, Chu E, et al. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2011, 3(1): 1-122.
12. Li Hongdi, Wang Chao, An Shaohui, et al. A fast and accurate timing alignment method with TDC linearity calibration for a high-resolution TOF-PET// 2013 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. Seoul: IEEE, 2014: 1-4..
13. Reynolds P D, Olcott P D, Pratx G, et al. Convex optimization of coincidence time resolution for high resolution PET systems// 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Dresden: IEEE, 2008: 4068-4073.
14. Fong C L, Saunders M. LSMR: An iterative algorithm for sparse least-squares problems. Siam J Sci Comput, 2010, 33(5): 2950-2971.
15. Hudson H M, Larkin R S. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 1994, 13(4): 601-609.
16. Huang S C. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol, 2000, 27(7): 643-646.
17. Lewellen T K. Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med, 1998, 28(3): 268.
18. Moses W W. Time of flight in PET revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2003, 50(5): 1325-1330.
19. Grant A M, Deller T W, Khalighi M M, et al. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys, 2016, 43(5): 233492443.
20. Minamimoto R, Levin C, Jamali M, et al. Improvements in PET image quality in time of flight (TOF) simultaneous PET/MRI. Mol Imaging Biol, 2016, 18(5): 776-781.

Next Article
Study on simulation method of knee hydrops based on biologcal impedance

Journal of Biomedical Engineering

Timing calibration comparison research of integrated TOF-PET/MR

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Next Article

Format

Content