PET-CT scanner characterization for PET raw data use in biomedical research

The purpose of this paper is to describe the experiments and methods that led to the geometrical interpretation of new-generation commercial PET-CT scanners, finalized to off-line PET-based treatment verification in ion beam therapy. Typically, the geometrical correspondence between the image domain (i.e., the dicom PET) and the sinogram domain (i.e., the PET raw data) is not explicitly described by scanner vendors. Hence, the proposed characterization can be applied to commercial PET-CT scanners used in biomedical research, for the development of technologies and methods requiring the use of PET raw data, without having access to confidential information from the vendors.

[1]  Oliver Jäkel,et al.  Positron emission tomography for quality assurance of cancer therapy with light ion beams , 1999 .

[2]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Katia Parodi,et al.  PET/CT imaging for treatment verification after proton therapy: a study with plastic phantoms and metallic implants. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  Katia Parodi,et al.  PET-based dosimetry in particle therapy: assessing the feasibility of regional MLEM reconstruction as a quantification tool , 2012 .

[5]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Implementation and workflow for PET monitoring of therapeutic ion irradiation: a comparison of in-beam, in-room, and off-line techniques , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Charged hadron tumour therapy monitoring by means of PET , 2004 .

[7]  Vladimir Y. Panin,et al.  Restoration of fine azimuthal sampling of measured TOF projection data , 2010, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference.

[8]  Giuseppe Baselli,et al.  Lesion quantification in oncological positron emission tomography: a maximum likelihood partial volume correction strategy. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[10]  M. Desco,et al.  PeneloPET, a Monte Carlo PET simulation tool based on PENELOPE: features and validation , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[11]  Michel Defrise,et al.  Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3-D PET data , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  Oliver Jäkel,et al.  Particle therapy at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT) - Integrated research-driven university-hospital-based radiation oncology service in Heidelberg, Germany. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  M. Conti.  Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  G. Baselli,et al.  Evaluation of Frequency-Distance Relation Validity for FORE Optimization in 3-D PET , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[15]  Mitsuyuki Abe,et al.  Usefulness of positron-emission tomographic images after proton therapy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Christopher Kurz,et al.  Implementation and initial clinical experience of offline PET/CT-based verification of scanned carbon ion treatment. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  H Paganetti,et al.  Clinical CT-based calculations of dose and positron emitter distributions in proton therapy using the FLUKA Monte Carlo code , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Giuseppe Baselli,et al.  The use of zeolites to generate PET phantoms for the validation of quantification strategies in oncology. , 2012, Medical physics.

[19]  Wolfgang Enghardt,et al.  In-beam PET imaging for the control of heavy-ion tumour therapy , 1996 .

[20]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Clinical application of in-room positron emission tomography for in vivo treatment monitoring in proton radiation therapy. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  K Parodi,et al.  Dose quantification from in-beam positron emission tomography. , 2004, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[22]  Christopher Kurz,et al.  An experimental approach to improve the Monte Carlo modelling of offline PET/CT-imaging of positron emitters induced by scanned proton beams , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Konstantina S. Nikita,et al.  Validation of a GATE model for the simulation of the Siemens biograph™ 6 PET scanner , 2007 .

[24]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Patient study of in vivo verification of beam delivery and range, using positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging after proton therapy. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Comparison between in-beam and offline positron emission tomography imaging of proton and carbon ion therapeutic irradiation at synchrotron- and cyclotron-based facilities. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[26]  Jennifer Prekeges.  Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation , 2009 .

[27]  Jinsong Ouyang,et al.  Monitoring proton radiation therapy with in-room PET imaging , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  M. Defrise,et al.  Fourier rebinning of time-of-flight PET data , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  D. Townsend,et al.  Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.