Literature DB >> 15872361

Correction methods for random coincidences in fully 3D whole-body PET: impact on data and image quality.

David Brasse1, Paul E Kinahan, Carole Lartizien, Claude Comtat, Mike Casey, Christian Michel.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: With the advantages of the increased sensitivity of fully 3-dimensional (3D) PET for whole-body imaging come the challenges of more complicated quantitative corrections and, in particular, an increase in the number of random coincidences. The most common method of correcting for random coincidences is the real-time subtraction of a delayed coincidence channel, which does not add bias but increases noise. An alternative approach is the postacquisition subtraction of a low-noise random coincidence estimate, which can be obtained either from a smoothed delayed coincidence sinogram or from a calibration scan or directly estimated. Each method makes different trade-offs between noise amplification, bias, and data-processing requirements. These trade-offs are dependent on activity injected, the local imaging environment (e.g., near the bladder), and the reconstruction algorithm.
METHODS: Using fully 3D whole-body simulations and phantom studies, we investigate how the gains in noise equivalent count (NEC) rates from using a noiseless random coincidence estimation method are translated to improvements in image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The image SNR, however, depends on the image reconstruction method and the local imaging environment.
RESULTS: We show that for fully 3D whole-body imaging using a particular set of scanners and clinical protocols, a low-noise estimate of random coincidences improves sinogram and image SNRs by approximately 15% compared with online subtraction of delayed coincidences.
CONCLUSION: A 15% improvement in image SNR arises from a 32% increase in the NEC rate. Thus, scan duration can be reduced by 25% while still maintaining a constant total acquired NEC.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15872361

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  17 in total

1.  Design study of a high-resolution breast-dedicated PET system built from cadmium zinc telluride detectors.

Authors:  Hao Peng; Craig S Levin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges.

Authors:  Shan Tong; Adam M Alessio; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2010-10-01

Review 3.  3D/4D Reconstruction and Quantitative Total Body Imaging.

Authors:  Jinyi Qi; Samuel Matej; Guobao Wang; Xuezhu Zhang
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2021-01

4.  Reliability of predicting image signal-to-noise ratio using noise equivalent count rate in PET imaging.

Authors:  Tingting Chang; Guoping Chang; John W Clark; Rami H Diab; Eric Rohren; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies.

Authors:  Dennis Vriens; Eric P Visser; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Wim J G Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Positron Emission Tomography: Current Challenges and Opportunities for Technological Advances in Clinical and Preclinical Imaging Systems.

Authors:  Juan José Vaquero; Paul Kinahan
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 9.590

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance-based motion correction for positron emission tomography imaging.

Authors:  Jinsong Ouyang; Quanzheng Li; Georges El Fakhri
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.446

8.  Monte Carlo simulation of digital photon counting PET.

Authors:  Julien Salvadori; Joey Labour; Freddy Odille; Pierre-Yves Marie; Jean-Noël Badel; Laëtitia Imbert; David Sarrut
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2020-04-25

9.  Simultaneous measurement of noise and spatial resolution in PET phantom images.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Arman Rahmim; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Design and system evaluation of a dual-panel portable PET (DP-PET).

Authors:  Tianyi Zeng; Jiaxu Zheng; Xinyuan Xia; Xin Chen; Beien Wang; Shuangyue Zhang; Adam Chandler; Tuoyu Cao; Lingzhi Hu; Qun Chen; Xu Chu
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2021-06-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.