Effect of inter-crystal scatter on estimation methods for random coincidences and subsequent correction.

Random coincidences can contribute substantially to the background in positron emission tomography (PET). Several estimation methods are being used for correcting them. The goal of this study was to investigate the validity of techniques for random coincidence estimation, with various low-energy thresholds (LETs). Simulated singles list-mode data of the MADPET-II small animal PET scanner were used as input. The simulations have been performed using the GATE simulation toolkit. Several sources with different geometries have been employed. We evaluated the number of random events using three methods: delayed window (DW), singles rate (SR) and time histogram fitting (TH). Since the GATE simulations allow random and true coincidences to be distinguished, a comparison between the number of random coincidences estimated using the standard methods and the number obtained using GATE was performed. An overestimation in the number of random events was observed using the DW and SR methods. This overestimation decreases for LETs higher than 255 keV. It is additionally reduced when the single events which have undergone a Compton interaction in crystals before being detected are removed from the data. These two observations lead us to infer that the overestimation is due to inter-crystal scatter. The effect of this mismatch in the reconstructed images is important for quantification because it leads to an underestimation of activity. This was shown using a hot-cold-background source with 3.7 MBq total activity in the background region and a 1.59 MBq total activity in the hot region. For both 200 keV and 400 keV LET, an overestimation of random coincidences for the DW and SR methods was observed, resulting in approximately 1.5% or more (at 200 keV LET: 1.7% for DW and 7% for SR) and less than 1% (at 400 keV LET: both methods) underestimation of activity within the background region. In almost all cases, images obtained by compensating for random events in the reconstruction algorithm were better in terms of quantification than the images made with precorrected data.

[1]  M. Rafecas,et al.  Use of a Monte Carlo-based probability matrix for 3-D iterative reconstruction of MADPET-II data , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[2]  R. Fontaine,et al.  Real time coincidence detection system for digital high resolution APD-based animal PET scanner , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[3]  V. Spanoudaki,et al.  Evaluation of different random estimation methods for the MADPET-II small animal PET scanner using GATE , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[4]  M. Rafecas,et al.  Characterization and readout of MADPET-II detector modules: validation of a unique design concept for high resolution small animal PET , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[5]  G. Knoll Radiation detection and measurement , 1979 .

[6]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Inter-crystal scatter in a dual layer, high resolution LSO-APD positron emission tomograph. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  R D Badawi,et al.  Randoms variance reduction in 3D PET. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  D. Snyder,et al.  Corrections for accidental coincidences and attenuation in maximum-likelihood image reconstruction for positron-emission tomography. , 1991, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[9]  David Brasse,et al.  Correction methods for random coincidences in fully 3D whole-body PET: impact on data and image quality. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Mean and variance of coincidence counting with deadtime , 2002 .

[11]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  Estimating accidental coincidences for pixelated PET detectors and singles list-mode acquisition , 2007 .

[12]  Sibylle Ziegler,et al.  An analog signal processing ASIC for a small animal LSO–APD PET tomograph , 2006 .

[13]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Quantitation in Positron Emission Computed Tomography: 4. Effect of Accidental Coincidences , 1981, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  Patrick L Chow,et al.  Attenuation correction for small animal PET tomographs , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  Statistical dynamic image reconstruction in state-of-the-art high-resolution PET , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  D P McElroy,et al.  A true singles list-mode data acquisition system for a small animal PET scanner with independent crystal readout , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Rik Van de Walle,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation in PET and SPECT instrumentation using GATE , 2004 .