Correction for Partial Volume Effects in Emission Tomography

  • O. G. Rousset
  • H. Zaidi

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zaidi H. and Sossi, V., Correction for image degrading factors is essential for accurate quantification of brain function using PET. Med Phys 31: 423–426 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Links J. M., Lesion detectability and quantitative recovery with FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med 26: 681–682 (1999).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fazio F. and Perani, D., Importance of partial-volume correction in brain PET studies. J Nucl Med 41: 1849–1850 (2000).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks R. A. and Di Chiro, G., Slice geometry in computer assisted tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1: 191–199 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gautschi W., “Error functions and Fresnel integrals.” in: Handbook of Mathematical Functions, edited by Abramowitz M and Segun I A Dover, New-York, (1968), pp 295–330.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abramowitz M. and Segun, I. A., Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover publications, New-York, (1965).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kessler R. M., Ellis, J. R. and Eden, M., Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8: 514–522 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman E. J., Huang, S. C., Plummer, D. et al., Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 6. effect of nonuniform resolution. J Comput Assist Tomogr 6: 987–999 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffman E. J., Huang, S. C. and Phelps, M. E., Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr 3: 299–308 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazziotta J. C., Phelps, M. E., Plummer, D. et al., Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 5. Physical-anatomical effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr 5: 734–743 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herscovitch P., Auchus, A. P., Gado, M. et al., Correction of positron emission tomography data for cerebral atrophy. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 6: 120–124 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahl L. M., Asselin, M. C. and Nahmias, C., Regions of interest in the venous sinuses as input functions for quantitative PET. J Nucl Med 40: 1666–1675 (1999).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huesman R. H., A new fast algorithm for the evaluation of regions of interest and statistical uncertainty in computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 29: 543–552 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsui B. M., Hu, H., Gilland, D. et al., Implementation of simulataneous attenuation and detector response in SPECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 35: 778–783 (1988).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeng G. L., Gullberg, G. T., Bai, C. et al., Iterative reconstruction of fluorine-18 SPECT using geometric point response correction. J Nucl Med 39: 124–130 (1998).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    King M. A. and Miller, T. R., Use of a nonstationary temporal Wiener filter in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med 10: 458–461 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Links J. M., Jeremy, R. W., Dyer, S. M. et al., Wiener filtering improves quantification of regional myocardial perfusion with thallium-201 SPECT. J Nucl Med 31: 1230–1236 (1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Links J. M., Becker, L. C., Rigo, P. et al., Combined corrections for attenuation, depth-dependent blur, and motion in cardiac SPECT: a multicenter trial. J Nucl Cardiol 7: 414–425 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iida H., Kanno, I., Takahashi, A. et al., Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow with H215O and dynamic positron-emission tomography. Strategy for quantification in relation to the partial-volume effect. Circulation 78: 104–115 (1988).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iida H., Law, I., Pakkenberg, B. et al., Quantitation of regional cerebral blood flow corrected for partial volume effect using O-15 water and PET: I. Theory, error analysis, and stereologic comparison. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 20: 1237–1251 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chawluk J., Alavi, A., R, D. et al., Positron emission tomography in aging and dementia: effect of cerebral atrophy. J Nucl Med 28: 431–437 (1987).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muller-Gartner H. W., Links, J. M., Prince, J. L. et al., Measurement of radiotracer concentration in brain gray matter using positron emission tomography: MRI-based correction for partial volume effects. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 12: 571–583 (1992).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rousset O., Ma, Y., Kamber, M. et al., 3D simulations of radiotracer uptake in deep nuclei of human brain. Comput Med Imaging Graph 17: 373–379 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rousset O. G., Ma, Y. and Evans, A. C., Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med 39: 904–911 (1998).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meltzer C. C., Kinahan, P. E., Greer, P. J. et al., Comparative evaluation of MRbased partial-volume correction schemes for PET. J Nucl Med 40: 2053–2065 (1999).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Labbe C., Froment, J. C., Kennedy, A. et al., Positron emission tomography metabolic data corrected for cortical atrophy using magnetic resonance imaging. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 10: 141–170 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Da Silva A. J., Tang, H. R., Wong, K. H. et al., Absolute quantification of regional myocardial uptake of 99mTc-sestamibi with SPECT: experimental validation in a porcine model. J Nucl Med 42: 772–779 (2001).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen C. H., Muzic, R. F., Nelson, A. D. et al., A nonlinear spatially variant object-dependent system model for prediction of partial volume effects and scatter in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17: 214–227 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brix G., Bellemann, M. E., Hauser, H. et al., [Recovery coefficients for the quantification of the arterial input functions from dynamic PET measurements: experimental and theoretical determination]. Nuklearmedizin 41: 184–190 (2002).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geworski L., Knoop, B. O., de Cabrejas, M. L. et al., Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med 27: 161–169 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blankespoor S. C., Xu, X., Kaiki, K. et al., Attenuation correction of SPECT using X-ray CT on an emission-transmission CT system: myocardial perfusion assessment. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 43: 2263–2274 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sossi V., Buckley, K. R., Snow, B. J. et al., Recovery of the human striatal signal in a slice oriented positron emission tomograph. J Nucl Med 34: 481–487 (1993).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shepp L. A. and Vardi, Y., Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1: 113–122 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hutton B. F. and Lau, Y. H., Application of distance-dependent resolution compensation and post-reconstruction filtering for myocardial SPECT. Phys Med Biol 43: 1679–1693 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pretorius P. H., King, M. A., Pan, T. S. et al., Reducing the influence of the partial volume effect on SPECT activity quantitation with 3D modelling of spatial resolution in iterative reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 43: 407–420 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hutton B. F. and Osiecki, A., Correction of partial volume effects in myocardial SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 5: 402–413 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brix G., Doll, J., Bellemann, M. E. et al., Use of scanner characteristics in iterative image reconstruction for high-resolution positron emission tomography studies of small animals. Eur J Nucl Med 24: 779–786 (1997).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Calvini P., Vitali, P., Nobili, F. et al., Enhancement of SPECT reconstructions by means of coregistered MR data. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 48: 750–755 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim H. J., Zeeberg, B. R. and Reba, R. C., Compensation for three-dimensional detector response, attenuation and scatter in SPECT grey matter imaging using an iterative reconstruction algorithm which incorporates a high-resolution anatomical image. J Nucl Med 33: 1225–1234 (1992).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ouyang X., Wong, W., Johnson, V. et al., Incorporation of correlated structural images in PET image-reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13: 627–640 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muzic R. F., Chen, C. H. and Nelson, A. D., A method to correct for scatter, spillover, and partial volume effects in region of interest analysis in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17: 202–213 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen C. H., Muzic, R. F., Nelson, A. D. et al., Simultaneous recovery of size and radioactivity concentration of small spheroids with PET data. J Nucl Med 40: 118–130 (1999).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Videen T. O., Perlmutter, J. S., Mintun, M. A. et al., Regional correction of positron emission tomography data for the effects of cerebral atrophy. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 8: 662–670 (1988).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meltzer C. C., Cantwell, M. N., Greer, P. J. et al., Does cerebral blood flow decline in healthy aging? A PET study with partial-volume correction. J Nucl Med 41: 1842–1848 (2000).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Matsuda H., Ohnishi, T., Asada, T. et al., Correction for partial-volume effects on brain perfusion SPECT in healthy men. J Nucl Med 44: 1243–1252 (2003).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Meltzer C. C., Zubieta, J. K., Links, J. M. et al., MR-based correction of brain PET measurements for heterogeneous gray matter radioactivity distribution. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 16: 650–658 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schoenahl F. and Zaidi, H., “Towards optimal model-based partial volume effect correction in oncological PET.” Proc. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Oct. 19–22, Rome, Italy, (2004) in press Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rousset O. G., Ma, Y., Marenco, S. et al., “In vivo correction for partial volume effects in PET: accuracy and precision.” in: Quantification of brain function using PET, edited by R. Myers, Cunningham, V., Bailey, DL, Jones, T Academic Press, San Diego, (1996), pp 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spinks T., Guzzardi, R. and Bellina, C. R., Measurement of resolution and recovery in recent generation positron tomographs. Eur J Nucl Med 15: 750–755 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kuwert T., Ganslandt, T., Jansen, P. et al., Influence of size of regions of interest on PET evaluation of caudate glucose consumption. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16: 789–794 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kuwert T., Morgenroth, C., Woesler, B. et al., Influence of size of regions of interest on the measurement of uptake of 123I-alpha-methyl tyrosine by brain tumours. Nucl Med Commun 17: 609–615 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Frouin V., Comtat, C., Reilhac, A. et al., Correction of partial volume effect for PET striatal imaging: fast implementation and study of robustness. J Nucl Med 43: 1715–1726 (2002).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Woods R. P., Mazziotta, J. C. and Cherry, S. R., MRI-PET registration with automated algorithm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17: 536–546 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Collins D. L., Neelin, P., Peters, T. M. et al., Automatic 3D intersubject registration of MR volumetric data in standardized Talairach space. J Comput Assist Tomogr 18: 192–205 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maes F., Vandermeulen, D. and Suetens, P., Medical image registration using mutual information. Proceedings of the IEEE 91: 1699–1722 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Robbins S., Evans, A., Collins, D. et al., Tuning and comparing spatial normalization methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2879: 910–917 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Strul D. and Bendriem, B., Robustness of anatomically guided pixel-by-pixel algorithms for partial volume effect correction in positron emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 19: 547–559 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Quarantelli M., Berkouk, K., Prinster, A. et al., Integrated software for the analysis of brain PET/SPECT studies with partial-volume-effect correction. J Nucl Med 45: 192–201 (2004).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Slifstein M., Mawlawi, O. and Laruelle, M., “Partial volume effect correction: Methodological consideration.” in: Physiological Imaging of the Brain with PET., edited by SB Hansen A. Gjedde, GM Knudsen, OB Paulson Academic Press, San Diego, (2001), pp 67–75.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zaidi H., Ruest T., Schoenahl F., Montandon M-L., Comparative assessment of brain MR image segmentation algorithms and their impact on partial volume correction in PET. (2004) submitted Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Aston J. A., Cunningham, V. J., Asselin, M. C. et al., Positron emission tomography partial volume correction: estimation and algorithms. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 22: 1019–1034 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Evans A., Marrett, S., Neelin, P. et al., Anatomical mapping of functional activation in stereotactic coordinate space. Neuroimage 1: 43–53 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rousset O. G., Deep, P., Kuwabara, H. et al., Effect of partial volume correction on estimates of the influx and cerebral metabolism of 6-[(18)F]fluoro-L-dopa studied with PET in normal control and Parkinson’s disease subjects. Synapse 37: 81–89 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Soret M., Koulibaly, P. M., Darcourt, J. et al., Quantitative accuracy of dopaminergic neurotransmission imaging with 123I SPECT. J Nucl Med 44: 1184–1193 (2003).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mullani N. A., A phantom for quantitation of partial volume effects in ECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 36: 983–987 (1989).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Phelps M. E., Huang, S. C., Hoffman, E. J. et al., An analysis of signal amplification using small detectors in positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 6: 551–565 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoffman E., “Positron Emission Tomography: principles and quantitation.” in: Positron Emission Tomography and Autoradiography, edited by Mazziotta JC and Schelbert HR Phelps ME Raven Press, (1986), pp 237–286.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hoffman E. J., Cutler, P. D., Digby, W. M. et al., 3-D phantom to simulate cerebral blood flow and metabolic images for PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 37: 616–620 (1990).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zubal I. G., Harrell, C. R., Smith, E. O. et al., Computerized 3-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Med Phys 21: 299–302 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Holmes C. J., Hoge, R., Collins, L. et al., Enhancement of MR images using registration for signal averaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22: 324–333 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Collins D., Holmes, C., Peters, T. et al., Automatic 3-D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation. Human Brain Mapping 3: 190–208 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shan Z. Y., Yue, G. H. and Liu, J. Z., Automated histogram-based brain segmentation in T1-weighted three-dimensional magnetic resonance head images. Neuroimage 17: 1587–1598 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wong D. F., Harris, J. C., Naidu, S. et al., Dopamine transporters are markedly reduced in Lesch-Nyhan disease in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93: 5539–5543 (1996).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rousset O. G., Ma, Y., Wong, D. F. et al., “Pixel-versus region-based partial volume correction in PET.” in: Quantitative Functional Imaging with Positron Emission Tomography., edited by RE Carson, Daube-Witherspoon, ME, Herscovitch, P Academic Press, San Diego, (1998), pp 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Alfano B., Brunetti, A., Prinster, A. et al., “STEPBRAIN: a stereolithographed phantom of the brain for nuclear medicine: computed tomography, and magnetic resonance applications. (abstract)” Annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, USA, (2003).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Szabo Z., Links, J. M., Seki, C. et al., Scatter, spatial resolution, and quantitative recovery in high resolution SPECT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16: 461–467 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zaidi H., Montandon, M.-L. and Slosman, D. O., Magnetic resonance imagingguided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography. Med Phys 30: 937–948 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Law I., Iida, H., Holm, S. et al., Quantitation of regional cerebral blood flow corrected for partial volume effect using O-15 water and PET: II. Normal values and gray matter blood flow response to visual activation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 20: 1252–1263 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Braem A., Chamizo Llatas, M., Chesi, E. et al., Feasibility of a novel design of high-resolution parallax-free Compton enhanced PET scanner dedicated to brain research. Phys Med Biol 49: 2547–2562 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Van Laere K. J. and Dierckx, R. A., Brain perfusion SPECT: age-and sexrelated effects correlated with voxel-based morphometric findings in healthy adults. Radiology 221: 810–817 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mignotte M., Meunier, J., Soucy, J.-P. et al., Comparison of deconvolution techniques using a distribution mixture parameter estimation: application in SPECT imagery. J Electron Imag 11: 11–25 (2002).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ishii K., Willoch, F., Minoshima, S. et al., Statistical brain mapping of 18F-FDG PET in Alzheimer’s disease: validation of anatomic standardization for atrophied brains. J Nucl Med 42: 548–557 (2001).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ibanez V., Pietrini, P., Alexander, G. E. et al., Regional glucose metabolic abnormalities are not the result of atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 50: 1585–1593 (1998).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Knowlton R. C., Laxer, K. D., Klein, G. et al., In vivo hippocampal glucose metabolism in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology 57: 1184–1190 (2001).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Meltzer C. C., Zubieta, J. K., Brandt, J. et al., Regional hypometabolism in Alzheimer’s disease as measured by positron emission tomography after correction for effects of partial volume averaging. Neurology 47: 454–461 (1996).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Melamed E., Lavy, S., Bentin, S. et al., Reduction in regional cerebral blood flow during normal aging in man. Stroke 11: 31–35 (1980).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Martin A. J., Friston, K. J., Colebatch, J. G. et al., Decreases in regional cerebral blood flow with normal aging. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 11: 684–689 (1991).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Matsuda H., Kanetaka, H., Ohnishi, T. et al., Brain SPET abnormalities in Alzheimer’s disease before and after atrophy correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29: 1502–1505 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Weckesser M., Hufnagel, A., Ziemons, K. et al., Effect of partial volume correction on muscarinic cholinergic receptor imaging with single-photon emission tomography in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Eur J Nucl Med 24: 1156–1161 (1997).Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Koole M., Laere, K. V., de Walle, R. V. et al., MRI guided segmentation and quantification of SPECT images of the basal ganglia: a phantom study. Comput Med Imaging Graph 25: 165–172 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Henze E., Huang, S. C., Ratib, O. et al., Measurements of regional tissue and blood-pool radiotracer concentrations from serial tomographic images of the heart. J Nucl Med 24: 987–996 (1983).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Herrero P., Markham, J. and Bergmann, S. R., Quantitation of myocardial blood flow with H2 15O and positron emission tomography: assessment and error analysis of a mathematical approach. J Comput Assist Tomogr 13: 862–873 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Nichols K., DePuey, E. G., Friedman, M. I. et al., Do patient data ever exceed the partial volume limit in gated SPECT studies? J Nucl Cardiol 5: 484–490 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Nuyts H., Maes, A., Vrolix, M. et al., Three-dimensional correction for spillover and recovery of myocardial PET images. J Nucl Med 37: 767–774 (1996).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Meltzer C. C., Leal, J. P., Mayberg, H. S. et al., Correction of PET data for partial volume effects in human cerebral cortex by MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 14: 561–570 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Dewaraja Y. K., Ljungberg, M. and Koral, K. F., Monte Carlo evaluation of object shape effects in iodine-131 SPET tumor activity quantification. Eur J Nucl Med 28: 900–906 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Vesselle H., Schmidt, R. A., Pugsley, J. M. et al., Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18]Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 6: 3837–3844 (2000).Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Menda Y., Bushnell, D. L., Madsen, M. T. et al., Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy. Nucl Med Commun 22: 1077–1081 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Soret M., Riddell, C., Hapdey, S. et al., Biases affecting the measurements of tumor-to-background activity ratio in PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 49: 2112–2118 (2002).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Tatsumi M., Nakamoto, Y., Traughber, B. et al., Initial experience in small animal tumor imaging with a clinical positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanner using 2-[F-18]Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Cancer Res 63: 6252–6257 (2003).Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hsieh J., Nonlinear partial volume artifact correction in helical CT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 46: 743–747 (1999).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zaidi H., Relevance of accurate Monte Carlo modeling in nuclear medical imaging. Med Phys 26: 574–608 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Koole M., Van de Walle, R., Van Laere, K. et al., Study of the quantification of FBP SPECT images with a correction for partial volume effects. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 49: 69–73 (2002).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. G. Rousset
    • 1
  • H. Zaidi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyJohns Hopkins Medical InstitutionsBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear MedicineGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations