Image quality parameters in brain imaging with fan-beam collimator: a Monte Carlo study on radiation scattering effects

  • Hamid Reza BaghaniEmail author


The effects of scattered radiation on image quality in brain imaging with fan-beam collimator were quantitatively evaluated. A commercial gamma camera in conjunction with a fan-beam collimator was simulated using MCNPX code. The effects of radiation scattering on image quality were evaluated by employing the Snyder phantom and comparing the system response to an isotropic 99mTc point source in both spatial and frequency domains. The trans-axial spatial resolution of the obtained point spread functions were studied in the spatial domain, at source-to-collimator distances of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 cm. At the same distances, the spatial frequencies at 90% (SF0.9) and 10% (SF0.1) of the maximum modulation transfer function were considered in the frequency domain. The maximum difference between the obtained full width at half-maximum in presence and absence of phantom was approximately 5%, while this difference was 14% for full width at tenth maximum. An analysis of system response in the frequency domain demonstrated a large difference of 43% between the obtained SF0.9 values in presence and absence of phantom. In contrast, this difference was a mere ~ 2% between the obtained SF0.1 values. Radiation scattering mainly degrades the image contrast resolution and has no considerable effect on the spatial resolution of the images acquired by the fan-beam collimator. Accordingly, the impact of radiation scattering on image quality was more obvious in frequency domain, and SF0.9 can be considered as an operational parameter for the quantitative assessment of radiation scattering effects on image quality in the frequency domain.


Fan-beam collimator Brain imaging Image quality Monte Carlo simulation 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not involve any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent



  1. 1.
    Prekeges J. Nuclear medicine instrumentation. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bushberg JT, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Audenhaege K, Van Holen R, Vandenberghe S, Vanhove C, Metzler SD, Moore SC. Review of SPECT collimator selection, optimization, and fabrication for clinical and preclinical imaging. Med Phys. 2015;42:4796–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ter-Antonyan R, Jaszczak RJ, Greer KL, Bowsher JE, Metzler SD, Coleman RE. Combination of converging collimators for high-sensitivity brain SPECT. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1548–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pareto D, Pavía J, Falcón C, Juvells I, Cot A, Ros D. Characterisation of fan-beam collimators. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:144–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park MA, Moore SC, Kijewski MF. Brain SPECT with short focal-length cone-beam collimation. Med Phys. 2005;32:2236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Capote RM, Matela N, Conceição RC, Almeida P. Optimization of convergent collimators for pixelated SPECT systems. Med Phys. 2013;40:062501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li T, Wen J, Liang Z. Analytical compensation for spatially variant detector response in SPECT with varying focal-length fan-beam collimators. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pareto D, Cot A, Pavía J, Falcón C, Juvells I, Lomeña F, et al. Iterative reconstruction with correction of the spatially variant fan-beam collimator response in neurotransmission SPET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1322–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pareto D, Cot A, Falcon C, Juvells I, Pavıa J, Ros D. Geometrical response modeling in fan-beam collimators. A numerical simulation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Pelowitzs DB. MCNPX user’s manual, version 2.6.0. Los Alamos: Los Alamos National Laboratory; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Less JE, Fraser GW, Keay A, Bassford D, Ott R, Ryder W. The high resolution gamma camera imager (HRGI): a CCD based camera for medical imaging. Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res. 2003;513:23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boren EL, Delbeke D, Patton JA, Sandler MP. Comparison of FDG PET and positron coincidence detection imaging using a dual-head gamma camera with 5/8-inch NaI(Tl) crystals in patients with suspected body malignancies. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rasouli FS, Masoudi SF. Simulation of the BNCT of brain tumors using MCNP code: beam designing and dose evaluation. Iran J Med Phys. 2012;9:182–92.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ICRU 46. Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda; 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NEMA, National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards Publication NU 1-2007: Performance measurements of gamma cameras. Washington DC; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arabi H, Kamali Asl AR, Ay MR, Zaidi H. Novel detector design for reducing inter-cell X-ray cross-talk in the variable resolution X-ray CT scanner: a Monte Carlo study. Med Phys. 2011;38:1389–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaszczak RJ, Greer KL, Floyd CE Jr, Harris CC, Coleman RE. Improved SPECT quantification using compensation for scattered photons. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:893–900.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    King MA, Hademenos GJ, Glick SJ. A dual-photopeak window method for scatter correction. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:605–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ogawa K, Harata Y, Ichihara T, Kubo A, Hashimoto S. A practical method for position dependent Compton-scatter correction in single photon emission CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991;10:408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noori Asl M, Sadremomtaz AR, Bitarafan-Rajabi A. Evaluation of six scatter correction methods based on spectral analysis in 99mTc SPECT imaging using SIMIND Monte Carlo simulation. J Med Phys. 2013;38:189–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physics DepartmentHakim Sabzevari UniversitySabzevarIran

Personalised recommendations