Influence of Co-57 and CT Transmission Measurements on the Quantification Accuracy and Partial Volume Effect of a Small Animal PET Scanner.

PURPOSE: Non-invasive in vivo positron emission tomography (PET) provides high detection sensitivity in the nano- to picomolar range and in addition to other advantages, the possibility to absolutely quantify the acquired data. The present study focuses on the comparison of transmission data acquired with an X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanner or a Co-57 source for the Inveon small animal PET scanner (Siemens Healthcare, Knoxville, TN, USA), as well as determines their influences on the quantification accuracy and partial volume effect (PVE). A special focus included the impact of the performed calibration on the quantification accuracy. PROCEDURES: Phantom measurements were carried out to determine the quantification accuracy, the influence of the object size on the quantification, and the PVE for different sphere sizes, along the field of view and for different contrast ratios.
RESULTS: An influence of the emission activity on the Co-57 transmission measurements was discovered (deviations up to 24.06 % measured to true activity), whereas no influence of the emission activity on the CT attenuation correction was identified (deviations <3 % for measured to true activity). The quantification accuracy was substantially influenced by the applied calibration factor and by the object size. The PVE demonstrated a dependency on the sphere size, the position within the field of view, the reconstruction and correction algorithms and the count statistics. Depending on the reconstruction algorithm, only ∼30-40 % of the true activity within a small sphere could be resolved. The iterative 3D reconstruction algorithms uncovered substantially increased recovery values compared to the analytical and 2D iterative reconstruction algorithms (up to 70.46 % and 80.82 % recovery for the smallest and largest sphere using iterative 3D reconstruction algorithms). The transmission measurement (CT or Co-57 source) to correct for attenuation did not severely influence the PVE.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the quantification accuracy and the PVE revealed an influence of the object size, the reconstruction algorithm and the applied corrections. Particularly, the influence of the emission activity during the transmission measurement performed with a Co-57 source must be considered. To receive comparable results, also among different scanner configurations, standardization of the acquisition (imaging parameters, as well as applied reconstruction and correction protocols) is necessary.