Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 924–930 | Cite as

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

  • Alexandre R. KrempserEmail author
  • Roberto M. Ichinose
  • Antonio M. F. L. Miranda de Sá
  • Silvia M. Velasques de Oliveira
  • Michel P. Carneiro
Original Article



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.


The NEMA image quality phantom and the NEMA scatter phantom were used. The phantoms were filled with 18F-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.


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.


The activity outside the FOV should be considered in RCs determination to improve the RC-based PVE correction method.


PET/CT Partial volume effect correction Recovery coefficient Activity quantification 



The authors thank the Nuclear Engineering Institute (IEN/CNEN) for providing the radiopharmaceutical needed to the phantoms and the medical physicist Tainá Olivieri for collaboration.

Conflict of interest

No potentials conflicts of interest were disclosed.


  1. 1.
    Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:938–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. 18F-FDG PET evaluation of the response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung, and colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:224–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1431–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomasi G, Rossio L. PET imaging: implications for the future of therapy monitoring with PET/CT in oncology. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(5):11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat E. Partial volume effect in PET tumour imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kessler RM, Ellis JR, Eden M. Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984;8:514–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rousset OG, Rahmim A, Alavi A, Zaidi H. Partial volume correction strategies in PET. PET Clin. 2007;2(2):235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman EJ. Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantification in positron emission computer tomography: effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979;3:299–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaidi H, Ruest T, Schoenahl F, Montandon ML. Comparative assessment of statistical brain MR image segmentation algorithms and their impact on partial volume correction in PET. Neuroimage. 2006;32(4):1591–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoetjes NJ, Van Velden FHP, Hoekstra OS, Hoekstraet CJ, Krak NC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG-PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679–87.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallivanone F, Stefano A, Grosso E, Canevari C, Gianolli L, Messa C, et al. PVE correction in PET-CT whole-body oncological studies from PVE-affected images. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58(3):736–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, Bural G, Surti S, Alavi A. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matheoud R, Secco C, Della-Monica P, Leva L, Sacchetti G, Inglese E, et al. The effect of activity outside the field of view on image quality for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:5861–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bjoern W, Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Watson CC, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Performance Characteristics of a New LSO PET/CT Scanner With Extended Axial Field-of-View and PSF Reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2009;56(3):633–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Mulnix T, Humm JL, Watson CC. PET performance measurements for an LSO based combined PET/CT scanner using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):813–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hatt M, Le Pogam A, Viskikis D, Pradier O, Le Rest CC. Impact of partial volume effect correction on the predictive and prognostic value of baseline 18F-FDG PET images in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:12–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jentzen W, Weise R, Kupferschläger J, Freudenberg L, Brandau W, Bares R, et al. Iodine-124 PET dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer: recovery coefficient in 2D and 3D modes for PET/CT systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:611–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre R. Krempser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto M. Ichinose
    • 1
  • Antonio M. F. L. Miranda de Sá
    • 1
  • Silvia M. Velasques de Oliveira
    • 2
  • Michel P. Carneiro
    • 3
  1. 1.Biomedical Engineering ProgramFederal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE, UFRJ)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Radiation Protection and DosimetryNational Nuclear Energy Commission (IRD, CNEN)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.PET/CT ClinicFleury LaboratoriesRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations