Advertisement

Improved quantification in single-pinhole and multiple-pinhole SPECT using micro-CT information

  • Christian Vanhove
  • Michel Defrise
  • Axel Bossuyt
  • Tony Lahoutte
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of accurate quantification in pinhole SPECT using micro-CT information.

Methods

Pinhole SPECT scans were performed using a clinical dual-head gamma camera. Each pinhole SPECT scan was followed by a micro-CT acquisition. Functional and anatomical images were coregistered using six point sources visible with both modalities. Pinhole SPECT images were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was based on micro-CT information. Scatter correction was based on dual and triple-energy window methods. Phantom and animal experiments were performed. A phantom containing nine vials was filled with different concentrations of 99mTc. Three vials were also filled with CT contrast agent to increase attenuation. Activity concentrations measured on the pinhole SPECT images were compared with activity concentrations measured by the dose calibrator. In addition, 11 mice were injected with 99mTc-labelled Nanobodies. After acquiring functional and anatomical images, the animals were killed and the liver activity was measured using a gamma-counter. Activity concentrations measured on the reconstructed images were compared with activity concentrations measured with the gamma counter.

Results

The phantom experiments demonstrated an average error of −27.3 ± 15.9% between the activity concentrations measured on the uncorrected pinhole SPECT images and in the dose calibrator. This error decreased significantly to −0.1 ± 7.3% when corrections were applied for nonuniform attenuation and scatter. The animal experiment revealed an average error of −18.4 ± 11.9% between the activity concentrations measured on the uncorrected pinhole SPECT images and measured with the gamma counter. This error decreased to −7.9 ± 10.4% when attenuation and scatter correction was applied.

Conclusion

Attenuation correction obtained from micro-CT data in combination with scatter correction allows accurate quantification in pinhole SPECT.

Keywords

Attenuation correction attenuation maps CT Molecular imaging Small-animal imaging Reconstruction pinhole SPECT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Tony Lahoutte is a Senior Clinical Investigator of the Research Foundation – Flanders (Belgium) (FWO). This work was supported by the Inter-University Attraction Poles Programme 6-38 of the Belgian Science Policy and by grant G.0569.08 from the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen.

References

  1. 1.
    Zaidi H, Hasegawa B. Determination of the attenuation map in emission tomography. J Nucl Med 2003;44(2):291–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    King M, Farncombe T. An overview of attenuation and scatter correction of planar and SPECT data for dosimetry studies. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003;18(2):181–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corbett JR, Ficaro EP. Clinical review of attenuation-corrected cardiac SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 1999;6(1 Pt 1):54–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh B, Bateman TM, Case JA, Heller G. Attenuation artifact, attenuation correction, and the future of myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14(2):153–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsumura A, Mizokawa S, Tanaka M, Wada Y, Nozaki S, Nakamura F, et al. Assessment of microPET performance in analyzing the rat brain under different types of anesthesia: comparison between quantitative data obtained with microPET and ex vivo autoradiography. Neuroimage 2003;20(4):2040–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiffer WK, Mirrione MM, Dewey SL. Optimizing experimental protocols for quantitative behavioral imaging with 18F-FDG in rodents. J Nucl Med 2007;48(2):277–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toyama H, Ichise M, Liow JS, Modell KJ, Vines DC, Esaki T, et al. Absolute quantification of regional cerebral glucose utilization in mice by 18F-FDG small animal PET scanning and 2-14C-DG autoradiography. J Nucl Med 2004;45(8):1398–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chantler CT, Olsen K, Dragoset RA, Chang J, Kishore AR, Kotochigova SA, et al. X-ray form factor, attenuation, and scattering tables (version 2.1). Physics Laboratory, Physical Reference Data. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2005. http://physics.nist.gov/ffast.
  9. 9.
    Hwang AB, Franc BL, Gullberg GT, Hasegawa BH. Assessment of the sources of error affecting the quantitative accuracy of SPECT imaging in small animals. Phys Med Biol 2008;53(9):2233–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hwang AB, Hasegawa BH. Attenuation correction for small animal SPECT imaging using x-ray CT data. Med Phys 2005;32(9):2799–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meikle SR, Kench P, Kassiou M, Banati RB. Small animal SPECT and its place in the matrix of molecular imaging technologies. Phys Med Biol 2005;50(22):R45–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanhove C, Defrise M, Lahoutte T, Bossuyt A. Three-pinhole collimator to improve axial spatial resolution and sensitivity in pinhole SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(2):407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chow PL, Stout DB, Komisopoulou E, Chatziioannou AF. A method of image registration for small animal, multi-modality imaging. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(2):379–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loening AM, Gambhir SS. AMIDE: a free software tool for multimodality medical image analysis. Mol Imaging 2003;2(3):131–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown S, Bailey DL, Willowson K, Baldock C. Investigation of the relationship between linear attenuation coefficients and CT Hounsfield units using radionuclides for SPECT. Appl Radiat Isot 2008;66(9):1206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanhove C, Defrise M, Franken PR, Everaert H, Deconinck F, Bossuyt A. Interest of the ordered subsets expectation maximization (OS-EM) algorithm in pinhole single-photon emission tomography reconstruction: a phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27(2):140–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beque D, Nuyts J, Bormans G, Suetens P, Dupont P. Characterization of pinhole SPECT acquisition geometry. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22(5):599–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beque D, Nuyts J, Suetens P, Bormans G. Optimization of geometrical calibration in pinhole SPECT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005;24(2):180–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Defrise M, Vanhove C, Nuyts J. Perturbative refinement of the geometric calibration in pinhole SPECT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008;27(2):204–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanhove C, Andreyev A, Defrise M, Nuyts J, Bossuyt A. Resolution recovery in pinhole SPECT based on multi-ray projections: a phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(2):170–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gullberg GT, Huesman RH, Malko JA, Pelc NJ, Budinger TF. An attenuated projector-backprojector for iterative SPECT reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 1985;30(8):799–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ogawa K, Harata Y, Ichihara T, Kubo A, Hashimoto S. A practical method for position-dependent Compton-scatter correction in single photon emission CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1991;10(3):408–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogawa K, Chuga A, Ichihara T, Kuba A, Hashimoto S. Quantitative image reconstruction using position-dependent scatter correction in single photon emission CT. Conference record. 1992 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Orlando, 1993. p. 1011–1013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gainkam LO, Huang L, Caveliers V, Keyaerts M, Hernot S, Vaneycken I, et al. Comparison of the biodistribution and tumor targeting of two 99mTc-labeled anti-EGFR nanobodies in mice, using pinhole SPECT/micro-CT. J Nucl Med 2008;49(5):788–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang L, Gainkam LO, Caveliers V, Vanhove C, Keyaerts M, De Baetselier P, et al. SPECT imaging with 99 mTc-labeled EGFR-specific nanobody for in vivo monitoring of EGFR expression. Mol Imaging Biol 2008;10(3):167–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beekman FJ, van der Have F, Vastenhouw B, van der Linden AJ, van Rijk PP, Burbach JP, et al. U-SPECT-I: a novel system for submillimeter-resolution tomography with radiolabeled molecules in mice. J Nucl Med 2005;46(7):1194–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vastenhouw B, van der Have F, van der Linden AJ, von Oerthel L, Booij J, Burbach JP, et al. Movies of dopamine transporter occupancy with ultra-high resolution focusing pinhole SPECT. Mol Psychiatry 2007;12:984–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li J, Jaszczak RJ, Coleman RE. Quantitative small field-of-view pinhole SPECT imaging – initial evaluation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1995;42(4):1109–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li J, Jaszczak RJ, Greer KL, Gilland DR, DeLong DM, Coleman RE. Evaluation of SPECT quantification of radiopharmaceutical distribution in canine myocardium. J Nucl Med 1995;36(2):278–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, Defrise M, Bossuyt A, Franken PR. Reproducibility of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction measurements in rat using pinhole gated SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(2):211–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beekman F, Hutton BF. Multi-modality imaging on track. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(9):1410–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Buvat I, Rodriguez-Villafuerte M, Todd-Pokropek A, Benali H, Di Paola R. Comparative assessment of nine scatter correction methods based on spectral analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. J Nucl Med 1995;36(8):1476–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ljungberg M, King MA, Hademenos GJ, Strand SE. Comparison of four scatter correction methods using Monte Carlo simulated source distributions. J Nucl Med 1994;35(1):143–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    King MA, Hademenos GJ, Glick SJ. A dual-photopeak window method for scatter correction. J Nucl Med 1992;33(4):605–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Vanhove
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michel Defrise
    • 2
  • Axel Bossuyt
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tony Lahoutte
    • 3
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentUZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Experimental Medical ImagingVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.In-Vivo Cellular and Molecular Imaging (ICMI)Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations