Literature DB >> 21751085

Comparative evaluation of scatter correction in 3D PET using different scatter-level approximations.

Irene Polycarpou1, Kris Thielemans, Ravindra Manjeshwar, Pablo Aguiar, Paul K Marsden, Charalampos Tsoumpas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In 3D PET, scatter of the gamma photons is one of the most significant physical factors which degrades not only image quality but also quantification. The currently most used scatter estimation method is the analytic single scatter simulation (SSS) which usually accommodates for multiple scattering by scaling the single scatter estimation. However, it has not been clear yet how accurate this approximation is for cases where multiple scatter is significant, raising the question: "How important is correction for multiple scattered photons, and how accurately do we need to simulate all scattered events by appropriate scaling?" This study answers these questions and evaluates the accuracy of SSS implementation in the open-source library STIR.
METHODS: Different scatter orders approximations are evaluated including different levels of scattering and different scaling approaches using Monte Carlo (i.e. SimSET) data. SimSET simulations of a large anthropomorphic phantom were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction algorithms. Images reconstructed with 3D filtered back-projection reprojection algorithm have been compared quantitatively in order to clarify the errors due to different scatter order approximations.
RESULTS: Quantification in regions has improved by scatter correction. For example, in the heart the ideal value was 3, whereas before scatter correction the standard uptake value (SUV) was 4.0, after single scatter correction was 3.3 and after single and double scatter correction was 3.0. After correction by scaling single scatter with tail-fit, the SUV was 3.1, whereas with total-fit it was 3.0. Similarly, for the SSS correction methodology implemented in STIR using tail-fit the heart SUV was 3.1 whereas using total-fit it was 3.0.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that correction for double scatter improves image contrast and therefore it is required for the accurate estimation of activity distribution in PET imaging. However, it has been also shown that scaling the single scatter distribution is a reasonable approximation to compensate for total scatter. Finally, scatter correction with STIR has shown excellent agreement with Monte Carlo simulations.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21751085     DOI: 10.1007/s12149-011-0514-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Nucl Med        ISSN: 0914-7187            Impact factor:   2.668


  9 in total

1.  Sensitivity estimation in time-of-flight list-mode positron emission tomography.

Authors:  J L Herraiz; A Sitek
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Furosemide diminishes ¹⁸F-fluoroethylcholine uptake in prostate cancer in vivo.

Authors:  H Christian Rischke; Teresa Beck; Werner Vach; Gesche Wieser; Anca L Grosu; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Philipp T Meyer; Cordula A Jilg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Evaluation of image reconstruction algorithms encompassing Time-Of-Flight and Point Spread Function modelling for quantitative cardiac PET: phantom studies.

Authors:  L Presotto; L Gianolli; M C Gilardi; V Bettinardi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Comparison of HRRT and HR+ scanners for quantitative (R)-[11C]verapamil, [11C]raclopride and [11C]flumazenil brain studies.

Authors:  Floris H P van Velden; Syahir M Mansor; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Bart N M van Berckel; Femke E Froklage; Shaonan Wang; Robert C Schuit; Marie-Claude Asselin; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Marc C Huisman
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  Data-driven, energy-based method for estimation of scattered events in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Nikos Efthimiou; Joel S Karp; Suleman Surti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.174

6.  Evaluation of synergistic image registration for motion-corrected coronary NaF-PET-MR.

Authors:  Johannes Mayer; Yining Jin; Thomas-Heinrich Wurster; Marcus R Makowski; Christoph Kolbitsch
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Validation of a computational chain from PET Monte Carlo simulations to reconstructed images.

Authors:  Philip Kalaitzidis; Johan Gustafsson; Cecilia Hindorf; Michael Ljungberg
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-04-21

8.  Hybrid PET/MR Kernelised Expectation Maximisation Reconstruction for Improved Image-Derived Estimation of the Input Function from the Aorta of Rabbits.

Authors:  Daniel Deidda; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Max L Senders; Willem J M Mulder; Zahi A Fayad; Robert G Aykroyd; Charalampos Tsoumpas
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 9.  Positron emission tomography of the vulnerable atherosclerotic plaque in man--a contemporary review.

Authors:  Sune F Pedersen; Anne Mette F Hag; Thomas L Klausen; Rasmus S Ripa; Rasmus P Bodholdt; Andreas Kjaer
Journal:  Clin Physiol Funct Imaging       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 2.273

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.