It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
More widespread use of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is limited by its high cost and radiation dose. Reductions in PET scan time or radiotracer dosage typically degrade diagnostic image quality (DIQ). Deep-learning-based reconstruction may improve DIQ, but such methods have not been clinically evaluated in a realistic multicenter, multivendor environment. In this study, we evaluated the performance and generalizability of a deep-learning-based image-quality enhancement algorithm applied to fourfold reduced-count whole-body PET in a realistic clinical oncologic imaging environment with multiple blinded readers, institutions, and scanner types. We demonstrate that the low-count-enhanced scans were noninferior to the standard scans in DIQ (p < 0.05) and overall diagnostic confidence (p < 0.001) independent of the underlying PET scanner used. Lesion detection for the low-count-enhanced scans had a high patient-level sensitivity of 0.94 (0.83–0.99) and specificity of 0.98 (0.95–0.99). Interscan kappa agreement of 0.85 was comparable to intrareader (0.88) and pairwise inter-reader agreements (maximum of 0.72). SUV quantification was comparable in the reference regions and lesions (lowest p-value=0.59) and had high correlation (lowest CCC = 0.94). Thus, we demonstrated that deep learning can be used to restore diagnostic image quality and maintain SUV accuracy for fourfold reduced-count PET scans, with interscan variations in lesion depiction, lower than intra- and interreader variations. This method generalized to an external validation set of clinical patients from multiple institutions and scanner types. Overall, this method may enable either dose or exam-duration reduction, increasing safety and lowering the cost of PET imaging.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Stanford University, Department of Radiology, Palo Alto, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956); Stanford University, Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956); Subtle Medical, Menlo Park, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e)
2 Oregon Health & Science University, Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Portland, USA (GRID:grid.5288.7) (ISNI:0000 0000 9758 5690)
3 Stanford University, Department of Radiology, Palo Alto, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
4 Subtle Medical, Menlo Park, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e)
5 Subtle Medical, Menlo Park, USA (GRID:grid.5288.7)
6 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, USA (GRID:grid.412689.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0650 7433)
7 Subtle Medical, Menlo Park, USA (GRID:grid.412689.0)
8 Stanford University, Department of Radiology, Palo Alto, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956); Subtle Medical, Menlo Park, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e)
9 University of Southern California, Department of Radiology, Los Angeles, USA (GRID:grid.42505.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 6853)