Development of anatomically and lesion contrast-guided partial volume correction: new 3D formalisms and validation in phantom and clinical studies

  • Hesham Abdel Gawad
  • Magdy M. KhalilEmail author
  • Medhat W. Shafaa
  • Shaban Al Ramlawy
Original Article



The aim of the study was to correct for partial volume effect in positron emission imaging studies which is the most influential factors using three-dimensional (3D) representation of the recovery coefficients (RCs) to improve standardized uptake value (SUV) calculations.


Several phantom studies were conducted at significantly wide range of lesion contrast, range 2:1 up to 15:1. It was then classified into two groups: one for generating 3D function taking into consideration the sphere size as well lesion contrast whereas the other group was used for functions validation. A segmentation threshold algorithm for lesion delineation and volume determination was generated based on lesion contrast and lesion size. In addition, five 3D functions of the RC of the SUV were formulated considering lesion size and lesion contrast. Validation of the new algorithms has considered both phantom and clinical studies.


The error in threshold 3D function was well below 10%. For lesions ≤ 2 cm in diameter, there was no statistical difference of the functions developed for SUVmax as well as those functions generated for SUVmean. However, the median SUVmax has increased significantly when compared with data before correction. For SUVmean, the increase in median value was also significantly high.


It has been successful to generate 3D mathematical formulations of the SUV RC taking into consideration the most influential factors including lesion size and lesion contrast. Validation studies were suggestive of the good performance of the new mathematical algorithms generated to correct for PVE. However, further studies are underway to ensure the performance of the proposed algorithms in clinical PET studies.


Partial volume correction Recovery coefficient Positron emission tomography–computed tomography Standardized uptake value 


Supplementary material

12149_2019_1356_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)
12149_2019_1356_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)
12149_2019_1356_MOESM3_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 12 kb)
12149_2019_1356_MOESM4_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 12 kb)
12149_2019_1356_MOESM5_ESM.docx (239 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 239 kb)


  1. 1.
    Khalil MM. Basics and advances of quantitative PET imaging. In: Khalil MM, editor. Basic science of PET imaging. Cham: Springer Publishing; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anouan KJ, Lelandais B, Edet-Sanson A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET partial volume effect correction using a modified recovery coefficient approach based on functional volume and local contrast: physical validation and clinical feasibility in oncology. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;61:301–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirov AS, Piao JZ, Schmidtlein CR. Partial volume effect correction in PET using regularized iterative deconvolution with variance control based on local topology. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:2577–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, et al. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tohka J, Reilhac A. Deconvolution-based partial volume correction in Raclopride-PET and Monte Carlo comparison to MR-based method. Neuroimage. 2008;39:1570–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boussion N, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1064–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius PH, Thomas BA, Hutton BF. A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:R119–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erlandsson K, Dickson J, Arridge S, et al. MR imaging-guided partial volume correction of PET data in PET/MR imaging. PET Clin. 2016;11:161–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang W, Hu Z, Gagnon D. A new component approach to efficiency normalization for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54(1):92–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Popescu LM, Matej S, Lewitt RM. Iterative image reconstruction using geometrically ordered subsets with list-mode data. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec IEEE. 2004;6:3536–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. A technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986;10(6):845–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolthammer JA, Su KH, Grover A, et al. Performance evaluation of the ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:3843–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Schoonmade LJ, et al. Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsujikawa T, Otsuka H, Morita N, et al. Does partial volume corrected maximum SUV based on count recovery coefficient in 3D-PET/CT correlate with clinical aggressiveness of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheebsumon P, Boellaard R, de Ruysscher D, et al. Assessment of tumour size in PET/CT lung cancer studies: PET- and CT-based methods compared to pathology. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefer A, Kremp S, Hellwig D, et al. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1989–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cottereau AS, Hapdey S, Chartier L, et al. Baseline total metabolic tumor volume measured with fixed or different adaptive thresholding methods equally predicts outcome in peripheral T cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:276–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kasr Al-Ainy Center for Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Cairo University Hospitals, Faculty of MedicineCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceHelwan UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Critical Care MedicineFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University HospitalsCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations