Literature DB >> 22481547

Accuracy of CT-based attenuation correction in PET/CT bone imaging.

Monica Abella1, Adam M Alessio, David A Mankoff, Lawrence R MacDonald, Juan Jose Vaquero, Manuel Desco, Paul E Kinahan.   

Abstract

We evaluate the accuracy of scaling CT images for attenuation correction of PET data measured for bone. While the standard tri-linear approach has been well tested for soft tissues, the impact of CT-based attenuation correction on the accuracy of tracer uptake in bone has not been reported in detail. We measured the accuracy of attenuation coefficients of bovine femur segments and patient data using a tri-linear method applied to CT images obtained at different kVp settings. Attenuation values at 511 keV obtained with a (68)Ga/(68)Ge transmission scan were used as a reference standard. The impact of inaccurate attenuation images on PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) was then evaluated using simulated emission images and emission images from five patients with elevated levels of FDG uptake in bone at disease sites. The CT-based linear attenuation images of the bovine femur segments underestimated the true values by 2.9 ± 0.3% for cancellous bone regardless of kVp. For compact bone the underestimation ranged from 1.3% at 140 kVp to 14.1% at 80 kVp. In the patient scans at 140 kVp the underestimation was approximately 2% averaged over all bony regions. The sensitivity analysis indicated that errors in PET SUVs in bone are approximately proportional to errors in the estimated attenuation coefficients for the same regions. The variability in SUV bias also increased approximately linearly with the error in linear attenuation coefficients. These results suggest that bias in bone uptake SUVs of PET tracers ranges from 2.4% to 5.9% when using CT scans at 140 and 120 kVp for attenuation correction. Lower kVp scans have the potential for considerably more error in dense bone. This bias is present in any PET tracer with bone uptake but may be clinically insignificant for many imaging tasks. However, errors from CT-based attenuation correction methods should be carefully evaluated if quantitation of tracer uptake in bone is important.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22481547      PMCID: PMC3353415          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/9/2477

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  25 in total

1.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions.

Authors:  W Schneider; T Bortfeld; W Schlegel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  An analytic study of the effects of attenuation on tumor detection in whole-body PET oncology imaging.

Authors:  Chuanyong Bai; Paul E Kinahan; David Brasse; Claude Comtat; David W Townsend; Carolyn C Meltzer; Victor Villemagne; Martin Charron; Michel Defrise
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Bruce H Hasegawa; Thomas Beyer
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.446

5.  Comparative assessment of energy-mapping approaches in CT-based attenuation correction for PET.

Authors:  Mohammad R Ay; Maryam Shirmohammad; Saeed Sarkar; Arman Rahmim; Habib Zaidi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.

Authors:  R L Wahl; R L Cody; G D Hutchins; E E Mudgett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients.

Authors:  C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2002-04-19       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy.

Authors:  Stephanie E Stafford; Julie R Gralow; Erin K Schubert; Kristine J Rinn; Lisa K Dunnwald; Robert B Livingston; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantitative indices of [18F]FDG uptake in PET.

Authors:  D Visvikis; D C Costa; I Croasdale; A H R Lonn; J Bomanji; S Gacinovic; P J Ell
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2002-12-20       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images.

Authors:  Yuji Nakamoto; Medhat Osman; Christian Cohade; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Steve Kohlmyer; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  17 in total

1.  [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography after limb salvage surgery: post-surgical appearance, attenuation correction and local complications.

Authors:  Michael J Gelfand; Susan E Sharp
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27

2.  Dual energy CT for attenuation correction with PET/CT.

Authors:  Ting Xia; Adam M Alessio; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Respiratory-induced errors in tumor quantification and delineation in CT attenuation-corrected PET images: effects of tumor size, tumor location, and respiratory trace: a simulation study using the 4D XCAT phantom.

Authors:  Parham Geramifar; Mojtaba Shamsaie Zafarghandi; Pardis Ghafarian; Arman Rahmim; Mohammad Reza Ay
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 4.  Attenuation Correction of PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  Yasheng Chen; Hongyu An
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.266

5.  Hot spot imaging in cardiovascular diseases: an information statement from SNMMI, ASNC, and EANM.

Authors:  Brett W Sperry; Timothy M Bateman; Esma A Akin; Paco E Bravo; Wengen Chen; Vasken Dilsizian; Fabien Hyafil; Yiu Ming Khor; Robert J H Miller; Riemer H J A Slart; Piotr Slomka; Hein Verberne; Edward J Miller; Chi Liu
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.872

6.  Quantitative evaluation of a deep learning-based framework to generate whole-body attenuation maps using LSO background radiation in long axial FOV PET scanners.

Authors:  Hasan Sari; Mohammadreza Teimoorisichani; Clemens Mingels; Ian Alberts; Vladimir Panin; Deepak Bharkhada; Song Xue; George Prenosil; Kuangyu Shi; Maurizio Conti; Axel Rominger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Fabrication and control of CT number through polymeric composites based on coronary plaque CT phantom applications.

Authors:  Carlton F O Hoy; Hani E Naguib; Narinder Paul
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-02-18

Review 8.  Morphology supporting function: attenuation correction for SPECT/CT, PET/CT, and PET/MR imaging.

Authors:  Tzu C Lee; Adam M Alessio; Robert M Miyaoka; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.346

Review 9.  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

10.  Optimization of SPECT-CT Hybrid Imaging Using Iterative Image Reconstruction for Low-Dose CT: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Oliver S Grosser; Dennis Kupitz; Juri Ruf; Damian Czuczwara; Ingo G Steffen; Christian Furth; Markus Thormann; David Loewenthal; Jens Ricke; Holger Amthauer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.