The Precision of Positron Emission Tomography: Theory and Measurement

The limits of quantitation with positron emission tomography (PET) are examined with respect to the noise propagation resulting from radioactive decay and other sources of random error. Theoretical methods for evaluating the statistical error have been devised but seldom applied to experimental data obtained on human subjects. This paper extends the analysis in several ways: (1) A Monte Carlo method is described for tracking the propagation of statistical error through the analysis of in vivo measurements; (2) Experimental data, obtained in phantoms, validating the Monte Carlo method and other methods are presented; (3) A difference in activation paradigm, performed on regional CBF (rCBF) data from five human subjects, was analyzed on 1.6-cm diameter regions of interest to determine the mean fractional statistical error in PET tissue concentration and in rCBF before and after stereotactic transformation; and (4) A linear statistical model and calculations of the various statistical errors were used to estimate the magnitude of the subject-specific fluctuations under various conditions. In this specific example, the root mean squared (RMS) noise in flow measurements was about three times higher than the RMS noise in the concentration measurements. In addition, the total random error was almost equally partitioned between statistical error and random fluctuations due to all other sources.

[1]  G. L. Brownell,et al.  Estimation of the Local Statistical Noise in Emission Computed Tomography , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  R. Carson A Maximum Likelihood Method for Region-of-Interest Evaluation in Emission Tomography , 1986, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[3]  Eiichi Tanaka,et al.  Properties Of Statistical Noise In Positron Emission Tomography , 1982, Other Conferences.

[4]  M. P. Beddoes,et al.  Effects of Detector Wobble Motion on Image Noise in Positron Emission Tomography , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  M. P. Beddoes,et al.  Noise Distribution Due to Emission and Transmission Statistics in Positron Emission Tomography , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  G T Gullberg,et al.  Emission Computer Assisted Tomography with Single‐Photon and Positron Annihilation Photon Emitters , 1977, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  R B Buxton,et al.  The 15O Steady-State Method: Correction for Variation in Arterial Concentration , 1988, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[8]  G T Gullberg,et al.  Quantitative potentials of dynamic emission computed tomography. , 1978, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  R. Huesman A new fast algorithm for the evaluation of regions of interest and statistical uncertainty in computed tomography. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  R H Huesman,et al.  The effects of a finite number of projection angles and finite lateral sampling of projections on the propagation of statistical errors in transverse section reconstruction. , 1977, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  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.

[12]  C. Bohm,et al.  Performance Study of the PC‐384 Positron Camera System for Emission Tomography of the Brain , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.