Modelling Random Coincidences in Positron Emission Tomography by Using Singles and Prompts: A Comparison Study

Random coincidences degrade the image in Positron Emission Tomography, PET. To compensate for their degradation effects, the rate of random coincidences should be estimated. Under certain circumstances, current estimation methods fail to provide accurate results. We propose a novel method, “Singles–Prompts” (SP), that includes the information conveyed by prompt coincidences and models the pile–up. The SP method has the same structure than the well-known “Singles Rate” (SR) approach. Hence, SP can straightforwardly replace SR. In this work, the SP method has been extensively assessed and compared to two conventional methods, SR and the delayed window (DW) method, in a preclinical PET scenario using Monte–Carlo simulations. SP offers accurate estimates for the randoms rates, while SR and DW tend to overestimate the rates (∼10%, and 5%, respectively). With pile-up, the SP method is more robust than SR (but less than DW). At the image level, the contrast is overestimated in SR-corrected images, +16%, while SP produces the correct value. Spill–over is slightly reduced using SP instead of SR. The DW images values are similar to those of SP except for low-statistic scenarios, where DW behaves as if randoms were not compensated for. In particular, the contrast is reduced, −16%. In general, the better estimations of SP translate into better image quality.

[1]  A. Dell'Acqua,et al.  Geant4 - A simulation toolkit , 2003 .

[2]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  S. Cherry,et al.  Observations regarding scatter fraction and NEC measurements for small animal PET , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

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

[5]  R. Fontaine,et al.  Real Time Coincidence Detection Engine for High Count Rate Timestamp Based PET , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  Michael E. Casey,et al.  Random correction for positron emission tomography using singles count rates , 2000, 2000 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (Cat. No.00CH37149).

[7]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Four-dimensional (4D) image reconstruction strategies in dynamic PET: beyond conventional independent frame reconstruction. , 2009, Medical physics.

[8]  Julian C Matthews,et al.  Optimization of the Injected Activity in Dynamic 3D PET: A Generalized Approach Using Patient-Specific NECs as Demonstrated by a Series of 15O-H2O Scans , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[10]  C. Stearns,et al.  Random coincidence estimation from single event rates on the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[11]  W. Moses,et al.  Corrigendum: Optimal whole-body PET scanner configurations for different volumes of LSO scintillator: a simulation study , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Stefan Eberl,et al.  Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  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.

[14]  H.W. Kraner,et al.  Radiation detection and measurement , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[15]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  Singles-prompt: a novel method to estimate random coincidences by using prompts and singles information , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[16]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  The AX-PET demonstrator—Design, construction and characterization , 2011 .

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

[18]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  Application of Artificial Neural Network for Reducing Random Coincidences in PET , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

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

[20]  Larissa Njejimana,et al.  Design of a Real-Time FPGA-Based Data Acquisition Architecture for the LabPET II: An APD-Based Scanner Dedicated to Small Animal PET Imaging , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

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

[22]  John W. Clark,et al.  Reliability of predicting image signal-to-noise ratio using noise equivalent count rate in PET imaging. , 2012, Medical physics.

[23]  Josep F. Oliver,et al.  Singles-prompts-randoms: Estimation of spurious data rates in PET , 2012, 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[24]  Roger Lecomte,et al.  NEMA NU 4-2008 Comparison of Preclinical PET Imaging Systems , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  Estimation of Accidental Coincidences in PET , 2015 .

[26]  Jurgen Seidel,et al.  Performance evaluation of the GE healthcare eXplore VISTA dual-ring small-animal PET scanner. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  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.

[28]  L. Shepp,et al.  A Statistical Model for Positron Emission Tomography , 1985 .

[29]  M. Palka,et al.  Test of a single module of the J-PET scanner based on plastic scintillators , 2014, 1407.7395.

[30]  C. W. Lerche,et al.  Towards Software-Based Real-Time Singles and Coincidence Processing of Digital PET Detector Raw Data , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[31]  C. Morel,et al.  Measured and simulated specifications of Lausanne ClearPET scanner demonstrator , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[32]  M Rafecas,et al.  Effect of inter-crystal scatter on estimation methods for random coincidences and subsequent correction. , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[33]  A Geissbuhler,et al.  A normalization technique for 3D PET data. , 1991, Physics in medicine and biology.

[34]  Eric C Frey,et al.  Development of a 4-D digital mouse phantom for molecular imaging research. , 2004, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[35]  F. Mandl,et al.  The Atomic Nucleus , 1957, Nature.

[36]  Magdalena Rafecas,et al.  Improving the singles rate method for modeling accidental coincidences in high-resolution PET , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[37]  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.

[38]  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.

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

[40]  Guillem Pratx,et al.  Bayesian reconstruction of photon interaction sequences for high-resolution PET detectors , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[41]  M N Maisey,et al.  Optimization of noise-equivalent count rates in 3D PET. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[42]  R. Fontaine,et al.  Comparison of coincidence identification techniques for high resolution PET , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.