Effect of random and scatter fractions in variance reduction using time-of-flight information

The ability of differential time-of-flight (TOF) information to reduce the statistical noise variance in PET reconstructions has been known since the 1980's. Since then, the technology and applications of PET have evolved, warranting a reconsideration of the estimated improvements of TOF with respect to modern PET. For example, whereas 2D cardiology or neurology studies were once the only options, 3D clinical whole-body oncology imaging is becoming more common. The augmented sensitivity, change in object size and shape, as well as the accompanying changes in isotope and dose, result in different relative amounts of scattered, random, and true coincidences than were seen in the past. Thus in an analysis of the TOF gain for modern PET, it is useful to consider the separate effects of varying these fractions. We present a simulation study investigating the relative amount of TOF contrast-to-noise gain for a range of levels of scattered and random coincidences. We demonstrate that both increased scatter and increased randoms noticeably enhance the TOF gain, but that the higher randoms fraction introduces the most drastic improvement. These results are encouraging for modern PET, where there is a greater random/scatter fraction than in the PET of the 1980's.

[1]  P. Grangeat,et al.  Comparison between three-dimensional positron emission tomography with and without time-of-flight measurement , 1992, IEEE Conference on Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging.

[2]  H. Barrett,et al.  List-mode likelihood: EM algorithm and image quality estimation demonstrated on 2-D PET , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[4]  S. Surti,et al.  Investigation of lanthanum scintillators for 3D PET , 2002, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[5]  G. Muehllehner,et al.  Investigation of lanthanum scintillators for 3-D PET , 2002 .

[6]  P. Grangeat,et al.  Three-dimensional PET reconstruction with time-of-flight measurement. , 1992, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Lucas C. Parra,et al.  List-Mode Likelihood EM Algorithm and Noise Estimation Demonstrated on 2D-PET , 1998, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[8]  W. W. Moses,et al.  List-mode maximum-likelihood reconstruction applied to positron emission mammography (PEM) with irregular sampling , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  H H Barrett,et al.  List-mode likelihood. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

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

[11]  Donald L. Snyder,et al.  Image Reconstruction from List-Mode Data in an Emission Tomography System Having Time-of-Flight Measurements , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[12]  T. Budinger Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. , 1983, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  L. J. Thomas,et al.  A Matheematical Model for Positron-Emission Tomography Systems Having Time-of-Flight Measurements , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[14]  W. Moses,et al.  Prospects for time-of-flight PET using LSO scintillator , 1999 .

[15]  David G. Politte Image improvements in positron-emission tomography due to measuring differential time-of-flight and using maximum-likelihood estimation , 1990 .

[16]  Takehiro Tomitani Image Reconstruction and Noise Evaluation in Photon Time-of-Flight Assisted Positron Emission Tomography , 1981 .