Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET

C. H. Holdsworth, Ramsey D Badawi, P. Santos, A. D. Van Den Abbeele, E. J. Hoffman, G. El Fakhri

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Phantom and patient data were used to compare performance of a one-iteration Monte Carlo scatter correction (MC-SC-1i) for 3D PET [1], a vendor-supplied one-iteration single scatter model-based correction (SSS-1i) for 3D PET [2,3], unscatter-corrected 3D PET (No-SC), a SSS-1i followed by Monte Carlo scatter correction as a second iteration (MC-SSS) for 3D PET, and a conv]olution-subtraction scatter correction for 2D PET in terms of quantitative accuracy and lesion detectability [4]. ROI analysis showed 2D PET images were more accurate than 3D, particularly for large phantoms, and MC-SSS corrected 3D PET images were more accurate than SSS-1i corrected 3D PET images for this data set 2D and 3D PET images were reconstructed from 59 patient data sets. Bias of 3D PET images with respect to 2D images was determined using Corresponding Intensity Variance [5]. 3D PET uncorrected images overestimated activity by ∼50% (smallest patients) to ∼150% (largest patients). The average absolute bias of SSS-1i corrected images (16%) was twice that of MC-SSS (8%) and more dependent on patient size. Lesion detection sensitivity in these patient images was evaluated using a Channelized Hotelling Observer. Scatter corrected 3D PET images performed ∼10% better than uncorrected 3D PET images for smaller patients. Slightly better lesion sensitivity was seen for large patients in images reconstructed using SSS-1i (CHO-SNR=2.23±0.29) compared to MC-SSS (2.08±0.27) and uncorrected images (2.02±0.23).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationIEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record
EditorsS.D. Metzler
Pages2540-2544
Number of pages5
Volume4
StatePublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes
Event2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record - Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference - Portland, OR, United States
Duration: Oct 19 2003Oct 25 2003

Other

Other2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record - Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference
CountryUnited States
CityPortland, OR
Period10/19/0310/25/03

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Cite this

Holdsworth, C. H., Badawi, R. D., Santos, P., Van Den Abbeele, A. D., Hoffman, E. J., & El Fakhri, G. (2003). Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET. In S. D. Metzler (Ed.), IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Vol. 4, pp. 2540-2544). [M9-8]

Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET. / Holdsworth, C. H.; Badawi, Ramsey D; Santos, P.; Van Den Abbeele, A. D.; Hoffman, E. J.; El Fakhri, G.

IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. ed. / S.D. Metzler. Vol. 4 2003. p. 2540-2544 M9-8.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Holdsworth, CH, Badawi, RD, Santos, P, Van Den Abbeele, AD, Hoffman, EJ & El Fakhri, G 2003, Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET. in SD Metzler (ed.), IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. vol. 4, M9-8, pp. 2540-2544, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record - Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference, Portland, OR, United States, 10/19/03.
Holdsworth CH, Badawi RD, Santos P, Van Den Abbeele AD, Hoffman EJ, El Fakhri G. Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET. In Metzler SD, editor, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Vol. 4. 2003. p. 2540-2544. M9-8
Holdsworth, C. H. ; Badawi, Ramsey D ; Santos, P. ; Van Den Abbeele, A. D. ; Hoffman, E. J. ; El Fakhri, G. / Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. editor / S.D. Metzler. Vol. 4 2003. pp. 2540-2544
@inproceedings{0c74c822b3964404a32f75bfc4c9969a,
title = "Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET",
abstract = "Phantom and patient data were used to compare performance of a one-iteration Monte Carlo scatter correction (MC-SC-1i) for 3D PET [1], a vendor-supplied one-iteration single scatter model-based correction (SSS-1i) for 3D PET [2,3], unscatter-corrected 3D PET (No-SC), a SSS-1i followed by Monte Carlo scatter correction as a second iteration (MC-SSS) for 3D PET, and a conv]olution-subtraction scatter correction for 2D PET in terms of quantitative accuracy and lesion detectability [4]. ROI analysis showed 2D PET images were more accurate than 3D, particularly for large phantoms, and MC-SSS corrected 3D PET images were more accurate than SSS-1i corrected 3D PET images for this data set 2D and 3D PET images were reconstructed from 59 patient data sets. Bias of 3D PET images with respect to 2D images was determined using Corresponding Intensity Variance [5]. 3D PET uncorrected images overestimated activity by ∼50{\%} (smallest patients) to ∼150{\%} (largest patients). The average absolute bias of SSS-1i corrected images (16{\%}) was twice that of MC-SSS (8{\%}) and more dependent on patient size. Lesion detection sensitivity in these patient images was evaluated using a Channelized Hotelling Observer. Scatter corrected 3D PET images performed ∼10{\%} better than uncorrected 3D PET images for smaller patients. Slightly better lesion sensitivity was seen for large patients in images reconstructed using SSS-1i (CHO-SNR=2.23±0.29) compared to MC-SSS (2.08±0.27) and uncorrected images (2.02±0.23).",
author = "Holdsworth, {C. H.} and Badawi, {Ramsey D} and P. Santos and {Van Den Abbeele}, {A. D.} and Hoffman, {E. J.} and {El Fakhri}, G.",
year = "2003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "2540--2544",
editor = "S.D. Metzler",
booktitle = "IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Evaluation of a Monte Carlo scatter correction in clinical 3D PET

AU - Holdsworth, C. H.

AU - Badawi, Ramsey D

AU - Santos, P.

AU - Van Den Abbeele, A. D.

AU - Hoffman, E. J.

AU - El Fakhri, G.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Phantom and patient data were used to compare performance of a one-iteration Monte Carlo scatter correction (MC-SC-1i) for 3D PET [1], a vendor-supplied one-iteration single scatter model-based correction (SSS-1i) for 3D PET [2,3], unscatter-corrected 3D PET (No-SC), a SSS-1i followed by Monte Carlo scatter correction as a second iteration (MC-SSS) for 3D PET, and a conv]olution-subtraction scatter correction for 2D PET in terms of quantitative accuracy and lesion detectability [4]. ROI analysis showed 2D PET images were more accurate than 3D, particularly for large phantoms, and MC-SSS corrected 3D PET images were more accurate than SSS-1i corrected 3D PET images for this data set 2D and 3D PET images were reconstructed from 59 patient data sets. Bias of 3D PET images with respect to 2D images was determined using Corresponding Intensity Variance [5]. 3D PET uncorrected images overestimated activity by ∼50% (smallest patients) to ∼150% (largest patients). The average absolute bias of SSS-1i corrected images (16%) was twice that of MC-SSS (8%) and more dependent on patient size. Lesion detection sensitivity in these patient images was evaluated using a Channelized Hotelling Observer. Scatter corrected 3D PET images performed ∼10% better than uncorrected 3D PET images for smaller patients. Slightly better lesion sensitivity was seen for large patients in images reconstructed using SSS-1i (CHO-SNR=2.23±0.29) compared to MC-SSS (2.08±0.27) and uncorrected images (2.02±0.23).

AB - Phantom and patient data were used to compare performance of a one-iteration Monte Carlo scatter correction (MC-SC-1i) for 3D PET [1], a vendor-supplied one-iteration single scatter model-based correction (SSS-1i) for 3D PET [2,3], unscatter-corrected 3D PET (No-SC), a SSS-1i followed by Monte Carlo scatter correction as a second iteration (MC-SSS) for 3D PET, and a conv]olution-subtraction scatter correction for 2D PET in terms of quantitative accuracy and lesion detectability [4]. ROI analysis showed 2D PET images were more accurate than 3D, particularly for large phantoms, and MC-SSS corrected 3D PET images were more accurate than SSS-1i corrected 3D PET images for this data set 2D and 3D PET images were reconstructed from 59 patient data sets. Bias of 3D PET images with respect to 2D images was determined using Corresponding Intensity Variance [5]. 3D PET uncorrected images overestimated activity by ∼50% (smallest patients) to ∼150% (largest patients). The average absolute bias of SSS-1i corrected images (16%) was twice that of MC-SSS (8%) and more dependent on patient size. Lesion detection sensitivity in these patient images was evaluated using a Channelized Hotelling Observer. Scatter corrected 3D PET images performed ∼10% better than uncorrected 3D PET images for smaller patients. Slightly better lesion sensitivity was seen for large patients in images reconstructed using SSS-1i (CHO-SNR=2.23±0.29) compared to MC-SSS (2.08±0.27) and uncorrected images (2.02±0.23).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11844294056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11844294056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:11844294056

VL - 4

SP - 2540

EP - 2544

BT - IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record

A2 - Metzler, S.D.

ER -