PURPOSE: We assessed the quantitation accuracy of small animal pinhole single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) under the current preclinical settings, where image compensations are not routinely applied. PROCEDURES: The effects of several common image-degrading factors and imaging parameters on quantitation accuracy were evaluated using Monte-Carlo simulation methods. Typical preclinical imaging configurations were modeled, and quantitative analyses were performed based on image reconstructions without compensating for attenuation, scatter, and limited system resolution. RESULTS: Using mouse-sized phantom studies as examples, attenuation effects alone degraded quantitation accuracy by up to -18% (Tc-99m or In-111) or -41% (I-125). The inclusion of scatter effects changed the above numbers to -12% (Tc-99m or In-111) and -21% (I-125), respectively, indicating the significance of scatter in quantitative I-125 imaging. Region-of-interest (ROI) definitions have greater impacts on regional quantitation accuracy for small sphere sources as compared to attenuation and scatter effects. For the same ROI, SPECT acquisitions using pinhole apertures of different sizes could significantly affect the outcome, whereas the use of different radii-of-rotation yielded negligible differences in quantitation accuracy for the imaging configurations simulated. CONCLUSIONS: We have systematically quantified the influence of several factors affecting the quantitation accuracy of small animal pinhole SPECT. In order to consistently achieve accurate quantitation within 5% of the truth, comprehensive image compensation methods are needed.
PURPOSE: We assessed the quantitation accuracy of small animal pinhole single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) under the current preclinical settings, where image compensations are not routinely applied. PROCEDURES: The effects of several common image-degrading factors and imaging parameters on quantitation accuracy were evaluated using Monte-Carlo simulation methods. Typical preclinical imaging configurations were modeled, and quantitative analyses were performed based on image reconstructions without compensating for attenuation, scatter, and limited system resolution. RESULTS: Using mouse-sized phantom studies as examples, attenuation effects alone degraded quantitation accuracy by up to -18% (Tc-99m or In-111) or -41% (I-125). The inclusion of scatter effects changed the above numbers to -12% (Tc-99m or In-111) and -21% (I-125), respectively, indicating the significance of scatter in quantitative I-125 imaging. Region-of-interest (ROI) definitions have greater impacts on regional quantitation accuracy for small sphere sources as compared to attenuation and scatter effects. For the same ROI, SPECT acquisitions using pinhole apertures of different sizes could significantly affect the outcome, whereas the use of different radii-of-rotation yielded negligible differences in quantitation accuracy for the imaging configurations simulated. CONCLUSIONS: We have systematically quantified the influence of several factors affecting the quantitation accuracy of small animal pinhole SPECT. In order to consistently achieve accurate quantitation within 5% of the truth, comprehensive image compensation methods are needed.
Authors: S Jan; G Santin; D Strul; S Staelens; K Assié; D Autret; S Avner; R Barbier; M Bardiès; P M Bloomfield; D Brasse; V Breton; P Bruyndonckx; I Buvat; A F Chatziioannou; Y Choi; Y H Chung; C Comtat; D Donnarieix; L Ferrer; S J Glick; C J Groiselle; D Guez; P F Honore; S Kerhoas-Cavata; A S Kirov; V Kohli; M Koole; M Krieguer; D J van der Laan; F Lamare; G Largeron; C Lartizien; D Lazaro; M C Maas; L Maigne; F Mayet; F Melot; C Merheb; E Pennacchio; J Perez; U Pietrzyk; F R Rannou; M Rey; D R Schaart; C R Schmidtlein; L Simon; T Y Song; J M Vieira; D Visvikis; R Van de Walle; E Wieërs; C Morel Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Eric C Frey; G Allan Johnson; Stuart S Berr Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Zhonglin Liu; George A Kastis; Gail D Stevenson; Harrison H Barrett; Lars R Furenlid; Matthew A Kupinski; Dennis D Patton; Donald W Wilson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sung You Hong; Gerard Tobias; Khuloud T Al-Jamal; Belén Ballesteros; Hanene Ali-Boucetta; Sergio Lozano-Perez; Peter D Nellist; Robert B Sim; Ciara Finucane; Stephen J Mather; Malcolm L H Green; Kostas Kostarelos; Benjamin G Davis Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Ana M Denis-Bacelar; Sarah E Cronin; Chiara Da Pieve; Rowena L Paul; Sue A Eccles; Terence J Spinks; Carol Box; Adrian Hall; Jane K Sosabowski; Gabriela Kramer-Marek; Glenn D Flux Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Monique R Bernsen; Pieter E B Vaissier; Roel Van Holen; Jan Booij; Freek J Beekman; Marion de Jong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 9.236