Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparative evaluation of scatter correction in 3D PET using different scatter-level approximations

  • Original article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The open source library STIR can be obtained from the web page: http://stir.sourceforge.net.

  2. SimSET was obtained from the web page: http://depts.washington.edu/simset/html/simset_main.html.

  3. Web page: http://amide.sourceforge.net.

References

  1. Zaidi H. Comparative evaluation of scatter correction techniques in 3D positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2000;27:1813–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zaidi H. Scatter modelling and correction strategies in fully 3-D PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22:1181.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 

  4. Watson C, Newport D, Casey M, Beanlands RS, Schmand M, De Kemp RA. Evaluation of simulation-based scatter correction for 3-D PET cardiac imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1997;44:90–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ollinger JM. Model-based scatter correction for fully 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:153–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zaidi H, Koral K. Scatter modelling and compensation in emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:761–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaidi H, Montandon M. Scatter compensation techniques in PET. PET Clin. 2007;2:219–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Accorsi R, Adam L, Werner M, Karp J. Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:2577–98.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  10. Poenisch F, Enghardt W, Lauckner K. Attenuation and scatter correction for in-beam positron emission tomography monitoring of tumour irradiations with heavy ions. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:2419–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Werling A, Bublitz O, Doll J, Adam LE, Brix G. Fast implementation of the single scatter simulation algorithm and its use in iterative image reconstruction of PET data. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:2947–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587–94.

    Article  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  17. Adam L, Karp J, Brix G. Investigation of scattered radiation in 3D whole-body positron emission tomography using Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:2879–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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.

  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.

  20. Zubal IG, Harrell CR, Smith EO, Rattner Z, Gindi G, Hoffer PB. Computerized three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Med Phys. 1994;21:299–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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.

  23. Kinahan PE, Rogers JG. Analytic 3D image reconstruction using all detected events. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1989;36:964–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Loening A, Gambhir S. AMIDE: a free software tool for multimodality medical image analysis. Mol Imaging. 2003;2:131–7.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  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.

  27. Gao F, Yamada R, Watanabe M, Liu H-F. An effective scatter correction method based on single scatter simulation for a 3D whole-body PET scanner. Chin Phys B. 2009;18:3066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahasan MM, Parker DJ. Design and performance evaluation of a prototype large ring PET scanner. In: Ao SI, Gelman L, editors. Advances in electrical engineering and computational science, vol. 39. The Netherlands: Springer; 2009. p. 161–72.

    Chapter  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.

  30. Markiewicz PJ, Tamal M, Julyan PJ, Hastings DL, Reader AJ. High accuracy multiple scatter modelling for 3D whole body PET. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:829–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Guerin B, El Fakhri G. Novel scatter compensation of list-mode PET data using spatial and energy dependent correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2011;30:759–73.

    Article  PubMed  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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr Robert Harrison (University of Washington) for valuable advice on SimSET simulations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charalampos Tsoumpas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polycarpou, I., Thielemans, K., Manjeshwar, R. et al. Comparative evaluation of scatter correction in 3D PET using different scatter-level approximations. Ann Nucl Med 25, 643–649 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0514-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0514-y

Keywords

Navigation