Advertisement

Theoretical Limitations of Tumor Imaging

  • David J. Goodenough
  • F. B. Atkins
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 152)

Abstract

The question of limitations of tumor imaging needs to be examined against the characteristics of current medical imaging systems. Moreover, the examination needs to be carried out against the backdrop of physical imaging properties of the imaging systems, as well as the physiological and chemical aspects of the underlying biological signals (tumors) and background (nontumor) areas. In particular, the important possibilities for enhanced image performance using labeled monoclonal antibodies need to be explored.

Keywords

Uptake Ratio Iodine Content Compute Tomography Number Count Density Compute Tomography System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. J. Goodenough, K. E. Weaver, D. O. Davis, Comparative image aspects of radiography and computed tomography, Investigative Radiology, Vol. 17, #5, pp. 510–23 (Sept.-Oct. 1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. J. Goodenough, Psychophysical perception of CT images, in: “Radiology of the Skull and Brain: Technical Aspects of Computed Tomography,” Vol. 5, pp. 3993–4021, T. H. Newton and D. G. Potts, ed., C. V. Mosby, St. Louis (1981).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. H. Gado, M. Phelps, R. E. Coleman, An extravascular component of contrast enhancement in cranial computed tomography, Radiology, 117: 589–93.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. D. Rockoff, D. J. Goodenough, R. McIntire, Theoretical limitations in the immunodiatnostic imaging of cancer with computed tomography and nuclear scanning, Cancer Research, 40:3054–58 (August 1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. H. Linfoot, Information theory and optical images, J Opt Soc, 45: 808–19 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. L. Brownell, Theory of radioisotope scanning, in: “Medical Radioisotope Scanning” Vol. 1, pp. 3–32, STI/PUB/82, Vienna, IAEA (1964).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. C. Gregg, Information capacity of scintiscans, J Nucl Med, 6:441–58 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. N. Beck, A theoretical evaluation of brain scanning systems, J Nucl Med, 2:314–24 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. N. Beck, P. V. Harper, Criteria for evaluating radioisotope imaging systems, in: “Fundamental Problems in Scanning,” pp. 348–82, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois (1968).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. M. Matthews, Comparison of coincidence counting and focusing collimators with various isotopes in brain tumor detection, Br J Radiol, 37:531–43 (1964).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. A. B. Simons, in: “Medical Radioisotope Scanning,” Vol. 1, pp. 115–40 STI/PUB/82, Vienna, IAEA (1964).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. M. W. Tsui, C. E. Metz, F. B. Atkins, A comparison of optimum detector spatial resolution in nuclear imaging based on statistical theory and on observer performance, Phys Med Biol, 23:654–76 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. G. Schultz, L. G. Knowles, L. C. Kohlenstein, Quantitative assessment of scanning-system parameters, J Nucl Med, 11:61–68 (1970).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. G. Knowles, E. F. Hart, A. G. Schultz, Effect of line spacing and rate meter averaging on lesion detection, J Nucl Med, 13:191–95 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. C. Kohlenstein, Observer’s performance in detecting lesions in radionuclide scans (Master’s thesis), The Johns Hopkins University, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. B. Atkins, P. Hoffer, D. Palmer, Dependence of optimum baseline setting on scatter fraction and detector response function, Medical Radionuclide Imaging, 1:101–18, Vienna, IAEA (1977).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. B. Atkins, A Monte Carlo analysis of photon scattering in radionuclide imaging (Ph.D. thesis), University of Chicago (1978).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. E. Metz, F. B. Atkins, R. N. Beck, The geometric transfer function component for scintillation camera collimators withstraight parallel holes, Phys Med Biol, 25:1059–70 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. J. Goodenough, Assessment of image quality of diagnostic imaging systems, in: “Medical Images: Formation, Perception and Measurement,” John Wiley & Sons, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Lakshmanan, P. Sharp, J. Mallard, The influence of size and radiopharmaceutical concentration ratio on the detection of abnormalities in chemical radionuclide imaging, Br J Radiol, 51:986–91 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Green, A semi-empirical model used to obtain values for scintiphoto contrast caused by spherical lesions arbitrarily located within the liver, Euro J Nucl Med, 3:213–17 (1978).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Whitehead, Quantitative analysis of minimum detectable lesion-to-background uptake ratios for nuclear medicine imaging systems, Medical Radionuclide Imaging, 1:409–34, Vienna IAFA (1977).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Tanaka, Statistical noise of reconstructed image in transverse section scan, Information Processing in Scintigraphy, pp. 440–45, Proceedings of IVth International Conference, Orsay, France (1975).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. B. Atkins, and D. J. Goodenough, Simulated uptake ratio requirements for spherical lesion images with a conventional scintillation camera, in: “Radiotracers in Biology & Medicine”, Vol. X, Chapter 12, CRC Press (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Goodenough
    • 1
  • F. B. Atkins
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The George Washington University Medical CenterUSA
  2. 2.Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed Army Medical CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations