Effect of Object Size on Scatter Fraction Estimation Methods for PET—A Computer Simulation Study

Scatter fraction (SF ) for PET scanners is typically estimated by making a single measurement using a solid cylindrical phantom with a line source radially offset from the center. The radial displacement of the line source is expected to give a value for scatter fraction that is representative of a typical PET scan for a scanner. A range of phantom sizes suitable for small animal and whole-body PET scanners is investigated. For whole-body imaging, we simulate phantom diameters ranging from 15 to 42 cm, whereas for small animal scanners, we simulate phantom diameters ranging from 2.5 to 15 cm. We find that the line source displacements suggested by the NEMA NU 4-2008 for three phantoms results in a scatter fraction very similar to the one that would arise from uniformly activated phantoms of similar size. On the other hand, the 20 cm phantom used for count rate performance assessment for wholebody scanners is shown to overestimate by about 25% the SF of the corresponding uniform phantom, a result that agrees well with that reported by the NEMA committee for the NU 2-2001 standard protocol. Combining the results obtained with small animal and whole-body scanners, we show that the optimal displacement of the line source for estimating the scatter fraction of an equivalent uniformly filled phantom is well approximated by a linear function of the phantom radius and is only weakly dependent on scanner size or detector material. The optimum radial displacement position appears to be at approximately four-fifths of the phantom radius from the center.

[1]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Triple energy window scatter correction technique in PET , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[2]  T. Spinks,et al.  Correction for scatter in 3D brain PET using a dual energy window method. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  C Lartizien,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Edward Anashkin,et al.  First test results of a commercially available clinical PET scanner using the NEMA NU 4 - 2008 small animal PET standards , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[5]  S R Meikle,et al.  A convolution-subtraction scatter correction method for 3D PET. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  P. Dorenbos,et al.  High-energy-resolution scintillator: Ce3+ activated LaBr3 , 2000 .

[7]  Georges El Fakhri,et al.  Impact of Acquisition Geometry, Image Processing, and Patient Size on Lesion Detection in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  P E Kinahan,et al.  Measured count-rate performance of the Discovery STE PET/CT scanner in 2D, 3D and partial collimation acquisition modes , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  J. Karp,et al.  Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalents counts , 1990 .

[11]  Michael E Casey,et al.  PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  J. Knuuti,et al.  Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: Discovery STE and Discovery VCT , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  J. Ollinger Model-based scatter correction for fully 3D PET. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Qinan Bao,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the Inveon Dedicated PET Preclinical Tomograph Based on the NEMA NU-4 Standards , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Thomas K. Lewellen,et al.  The effect of camera geometry on singles flux, scatter fraction and trues and randoms sensitivity for cylindrical 3D PET-a simulation study , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[16]  R. N. Goble,et al.  Performance evaluation of the microPET P4: a PET system dedicated to animal imaging. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  C. Bohm,et al.  Correction for Scattered Radiation in a Ring Detector Positron Camera by Integral Transformation of the Projections , 1983, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[18]  S. Cherry,et al.  Observations regarding scatter fraction and NEC measurements for small animal PET , 2006, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[19]  R. Trebossen,et al.  A PET scatter correction using simultaneous acquisitions with low and high lower energy thresholds , 1993, 1993 IEEE Conference Record Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

[20]  P. Valk,et al.  Positon emission tomography. Basic sciences , 2006 .