Comparative evaluation of scatter correction in 3D PET using different scatter-level approximations
In 3D PET, scatter of the gamma photons is one of the most significant physical factors which degrades not only image quality but also quantification. The currently most used scatter estimation method is the analytic single scatter simulation (SSS) which usually accommodates for multiple scattering by scaling the single scatter estimation. However, it has not been clear yet how accurate this approximation is for cases where multiple scatter is significant, raising the question: “How important is correction for multiple scattered photons, and how accurately do we need to simulate all scattered events by appropriate scaling?” This study answers these questions and evaluates the accuracy of SSS implementation in the open-source library STIR.
Different scatter orders approximations are evaluated including different levels of scattering and different scaling approaches using Monte Carlo (i.e. SimSET) data. SimSET simulations of a large anthropomorphic phantom were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction algorithms. Images reconstructed with 3D filtered back-projection reprojection algorithm have been compared quantitatively in order to clarify the errors due to different scatter order approximations.
Quantification in regions has improved by scatter correction. For example, in the heart the ideal value was 3, whereas before scatter correction the standard uptake value (SUV) was 4.0, after single scatter correction was 3.3 and after single and double scatter correction was 3.0. After correction by scaling single scatter with tail-fit, the SUV was 3.1, whereas with total-fit it was 3.0. Similarly, for the SSS correction methodology implemented in STIR using tail-fit the heart SUV was 3.1 whereas using total-fit it was 3.0.
The results demonstrate that correction for double scatter improves image contrast and therefore it is required for the accurate estimation of activity distribution in PET imaging. However, it has been also shown that scaling the single scatter distribution is a reasonable approximation to compensate for total scatter. Finally, scatter correction with STIR has shown excellent agreement with Monte Carlo simulations.
KeywordsScatter Quantification Monte Carlo STIR
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr Robert Harrison (University of Washington) for valuable advice on SimSET simulations.
- 3.Watson C, Newport D, Casey M. A single scatter simulation technique for scatter correction in 3D PET. 3D Image Reconstr Radiol Nucl Med. 1996;4:255–68.Google Scholar
- 9.Iatrou M, Manjeshwar RM, Ross SG, Thielemans K, Stearns CW. 3D implementation of scatter estimation in 3D PET. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2006.Google Scholar
- 13.Thielemans K, Manjeshwar RM, Tsoumpas C, Jansen FP. A new algorithm for scaling of PET scatter estimates using all coincidence events. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2007.Google Scholar
- 14.Thielemans K, Mustafovic S, Tsoumpas C. STIR: Software for Tomographic Image Reconstruction Release 2. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2006.Google Scholar
- 15.Tsoumpas C, Aguiar P, Nikita KS, Ros D, Thielemans K. Evaluation of the single scatter simulation algorithm implemented in the STIR library. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2004.Google Scholar
- 16.Goggin AS, Ollinger JM. A model for multiple scatters in fully 3D PET. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 1994.Google Scholar
- 18.Tsoumpas C, Aguiar P, Ros D, Dikaios N, Thielemans K. Scatter simulation including double scatter. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2005.Google Scholar
- 19.Qian H, Manjeshwar RM, Thielemans K. A comparative study of multiple scatters in 3D PET. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2010.Google Scholar
- 21.Lewellen T, Harrison R, Vannoy S. The SIMSET program. In: Ljungberg M, Strand S-E, King M, editors. Monte Carlo calculations in nuclear medicine. London: IOP Publishers; 1998. p. 77–92.Google Scholar
- 22.Shao Y, Manjeshwar R, Jansen F, Kumar P. PSM: PET system modeling capable of generating images with clinically relevant count density. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference. 2003.Google Scholar
- 25.Hogg D, Mustafovic S, Thielemans K, Spinks TJ. A study of bias for various iterative reconstruction methods in PET. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2002.Google Scholar
- 26.Ahn S, Fessler JA. Statistical emission image reconstruction for randoms-precorrected PET scans using negative sinogram values. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2003.Google Scholar
- 29.Cade S, Bousse A, Arridge S, Evans M, Hutton B. Estimating an attenuation map from measured scatter for 180o cardiac SPECT. In: Proceedings of the 2010 SNM Annual Meeting. 2010.Google Scholar
- 32.Ferreira NC, Trébossen R, Lartizien C, Brulon V, Merceron P, Bendriem B. A hybrid scatter correction for 3D PET based on an estimation of the distribution of unscattered coincidences: implementation on the ECAT EXACT HR+. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:1555–71.Google Scholar