Lesion detectability and quantification in PET/CT oncological studies by Monte Carlo simulations

The aim of this work was to assess lesion detectability and quantification in whole body oncological /sup 18/F-FDG studies performed by a state-of-the-art integrated Positron Emission Tomograph/computed tomography (PET/CT) system. Lesion detectability and quantification were assessed by a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation approach as a function of different physical factors (e.g., attenuation and scatter), image counting statistics, lesion size and position, lesion-to-background radioactivity concentration ratio (L/B), and reconstruction algorithms. The results of this work brought to a number of conclusions. The MC code PET-electron gamma shower (EGS) was accurate in simulating the physical response of the considered PET/CT scanner (>90%). PET-EGS and patient-derived phantoms can be used in simulating/sup 18/ F-FDG PET oncological studies. Counting statistics is a dominant factor in lesion detectability. Correction for scatter (from both inside and outside the field of view) is needed to improve lesion detectability. Iterative reconstruction and attenuation correction must be used to interpret clinical images. Re-binning algorithms are appropriate for whole-body oncological data. A MC-based method for correction of partial volume effect is feasible. For the considered PET/CT system, limits in lesion detectability were determined in situations comparable to those of real oncological studies: at a L/B=3 for lesions of 12 mm diameter and at a L/B=4 for lesions of 8 mm diameter.

[1]  M. Sasaki,et al.  The usefulness of FDG positron emission tomography for the detection of mediastinal lymph node metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a comparative study with X-ray computed tomography , 1996, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  S S Gambhir,et al.  ROC and localization ROC analyses of lesion detection in whole-body FDG PET: effects of acquisition mode, attenuation correction and reconstruction algorithm. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Lilli Geworski,et al.  Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[5]  C. C. Watson,et al.  New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[6]  J. Zubieta,et al.  Influence of spatially heterogeneous background activity on "hot object" quantitation in brain emission computed tomography. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  Claire Labbé,et al.  An object-oriented library incorporating efficient projection/backprojection operators for volume reconstruction in 3D PET , 1999 .

[8]  R. Kessler,et al.  Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[9]  D. Visvikis,et al.  Positron emission and computed X-ray tomography: a coming together , 2003, Nuclear medicine communications.

[10]  F. Fazio,et al.  Scatter correction techniques in 3D PET: a Monte Carlo evaluation , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[11]  Giovanna Rizzo,et al.  A Monte Carlo model of noise components in 3D PET , 2001 .

[12]  D W Townsend,et al.  Dual-modality PET/CT tomography for clinical oncology. , 2002, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology.

[13]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  M.C. Gilardi,et al.  Data rebinning and reconstruction in 3D PET/CT oncological studies: a Monte Carlo evaluation , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[15]  Elliot K Fishman,et al.  Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. , 2003, Gynecologic oncology.

[16]  J Llacer,et al.  ROC and LROC analyses of the effects of lesion contrast, size, and signal-to-noise ratio on detectability in PET images. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  M P Frick,et al.  Diagnostic efficacy of PET-FDG imaging in solitary pulmonary nodules. Potential role in evaluation and management. , 1993, Chest.

[18]  S. Gambhir Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography , 2002, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[19]  P B Hoffer,et al.  Computerized three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. , 1994, Medical physics.

[20]  Masatoshi Itoh,et al.  Estimation of absorbed dose for 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d- glucose using whole-body positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging , 1998, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  A. Olshen,et al.  Imaging of oncologic patients: benefit of combined CT and FDG PET in the diagnosis of malignancy. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[23]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Quantitation in Positron Emission Computed Tomography: 1. Effect of Object Size , 1979, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[24]  A. Chatziioannou,et al.  Comparing lesion detection performance for PET image reconstruction algorithms: A case study , 1996, 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record.