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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record |
| Editors | S.D. Metzler |
| Pages | 2540-2544 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Volume | 4 |
| State | Published - 2003 |
| Externally published | Yes |
| Event | 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record - Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference - Portland, OR, United States Duration: Oct 19 2003 → Oct 25 2003 |
Other
| Other | 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record - Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| City | Portland, OR |
| Period | 10/19/03 → 10/25/03 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Cite this
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 proceeding › Conference contribution
}
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 -