Advertisement

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 15, Issue 11, pp 683–686 | Cite as

Assessment of the scatter fraction evaluation methodology using Monte Carlo simulation techniques

  • Domenico Acchiappati
  • Nicola Cerullo
  • Riccardo Guzzardi
Article

Abstract

To evaluate scatter fraction and scatter pair spatial distribution, experimental methods are generally used. These methods make use of a line source, placed along the FOV axis, inserted in a cylindrical phantom filled with air or water. The accuracy of these experimental methodologies can be tested by the use of a Monte Carlo method. In fact, the simulation allows the shape of the scatter event projection and the scatter fraction to be defined. An example of this application is the simulation package PETSI (PET SImulation). In this paper the comparison between the predicted scatter fraction and the experimentally evaluated one, obtained using an ECAT III PT 911/02 double ring whole body scanner are presented. PETSI permits additional data to be obtained: a) the true and scatter component of the energy spectrum; b) the spatial distribution, in the FOV plane, of the detected scatter events at different energy thresholds; c) the scatter to total detected events ratio; d) the predicted scatter fraction at both energy thresholds and FOV diameters. This information is very useful for optimizing both energy threshold and FOV size and to improve the accuracy of the currently used methods for the scatter fraction evaluation. Preliminary results of the predicted scatter fraction in a uniform phantom are presented.

Key words

Monte Carlo Scattering Simulation Positron emission tomography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acchiappati D, Cerullo N, Guzzardi R (1988a) Development of a Monte Carlo simulation package for PET and validation through comparison with the experimental performance of a whole body tomograph. Presented at the IEEE-1988 Nuclear Science Symposium, Orlando, Florida, USA 9–11 Nov. 1988Google Scholar
  2. Acchiappati D, Cerullo N, Guzzardi R (1988b) Analysis of the performance of a PET scanner through Monte Carlo simulation and experimental comparison. Presented at the European Nuclear Medicine Congress, Milano, Italy, August 29–September 2, 1988Google Scholar
  3. Bergstrom M, Bohm C, Ericson K, Erikson L, Litton J (1980) Corrections for attenuation, scattered radiation, and random coincidences in a ring detector Positron Emission Transaxial Tomograph. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 27:549–551Google Scholar
  4. Bergstrom M, Erikson L, Bohm C, Blomquist G, Litton J (1983) Correction for scattered radiation in a ring detector PC by integral transform of the projection. J Comput Assist Tomogr 7:42–50Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw J, Burnahm C, Correia J, Rogers WL (1985) Application of Monte Carlo methods to the design of SPECT detector systems. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 32:753–757Google Scholar
  6. Carroll LR, Hendry GO, Currin JD (1980) Design criteria for multislice Positron Emission Computed Tomography detector systems. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 27:485–488Google Scholar
  7. Dent HM, Jones WF, Casey ME (1986) A real time digital coincidence processor for Positron Emission Tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 33:556–559Google Scholar
  8. Endo M, Linuma TA (1984) Software correction of scatter coincidence in positron CT. J Nucl Med 9:391–396Google Scholar
  9. Guzzardi R, Bellina C, Spinks T (1987) Characteristics and spatial response of a new tomograph: the ECAT III. J Nucl Med Allied Sci 31:88Google Scholar
  10. Jones WF, Casey ME, Byars LG, Burgies SG (1986) A VME bus based, real time sorter design for positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 33:601–604Google Scholar
  11. King PM (1981) Noise identification and removal in positron imaging systems. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 28:148–151Google Scholar
  12. Lupton LR, Keller NA (1983) Performance study of single-slice positron emission tomography scanners by Monte-Carlo techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2:154–168Google Scholar
  13. Mankoff D, Muehllehner G (1984) Performance of positron imaging systems as a function of energy threshold and shielding depth. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1:18–24Google Scholar
  14. Profio AE (1979) Radiation schielding and dosimetry, ed. Willey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Raeside DE (1976) Monte Carlo principles and applications. Phys Med Biol 21:181–197Google Scholar
  16. Selph WE, Garret CW (1973) Monte Carlo methods for radiation transport. In: Schaeffer NM (ed) U.S. atomic energy commission. pp 207–276Google Scholar
  17. Spinks TJ, Guzzardi R, Bellina CR (1988) Performance characteristics of the ECAT III whole body positron tomograph. J Nucl Med 29:1833–1841Google Scholar
  18. Thompson CJ (1988) The effect of collimation on scatter fraction in multislice PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 35:598–602Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Acchiappati
    • 1
  • Nicola Cerullo
    • 2
  • Riccardo Guzzardi
    • 1
  1. 1.C.N.R. Institute of Clinical PhysiologyPisaItaly
  2. 2.D.I.N.E.University of GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations