Recovery coefficients determination for partial volume effect correction in oncological PET/CT images considering the effect of activity outside the field of view

Objectives The partial volume effect (PVE) has a great impact in quantitative PET/CT imaging. Correction methods have been recently proposed by many authors to make the image quantification more accurate. This work presents a methodology for determining the recovery coefficients (RCs) for PVE correc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of nuclear medicine 2013-12, Vol.27 (10), p.924-930
Main Authors: Krempser, Alexandre R., Ichinose, Roberto M., Miranda de Sá, Antonio M. F. L., Velasques de Oliveira, Silvia M., Carneiro, Michel P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
Imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Multimodal Imaging
Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Nuclear Medicine
Original Article
Phantoms, Imaging
Positron-Emission Tomography
Radiology
Scattering, Radiation
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives The partial volume effect (PVE) has a great impact in quantitative PET/CT imaging. Correction methods have been recently proposed by many authors to make the image quantification more accurate. This work presents a methodology for determining the recovery coefficients (RCs) for PVE correction in PET/CT images. It was taken into account the radioactivity outside the field of view (FOV), which is expected in a patient image acquisition. Methods The NEMA image quality phantom and the NEMA scatter phantom were used. The phantoms were filled with 18 F-FDG for different sphere-to-background ratios. The RCs have been determined from image acquisitions in a Siemens Biograph 16 Hi-Rez PET/CT scanner with and without the scatter phantom. Results The RC values that ranged from 0.38 to 1.00 without the scatter phantom exhibited a wider variation when this latter was taken into account (from 0.27 to 1.02). This more realistic estimation must be considered if one takes into account that an incorrect SUV measure in tumors leads to errors in the evaluation of the response to therapy based on PET/CT images. Conclusions The activity outside the FOV should be considered in RCs determination to improve the RC-based PVE correction method.
ISSN:0914-7187
1864-6433
DOI:10.1007/s12149-013-0773-x