Advertisement

Quantitative SPECT/CT

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 187)

Abstract

Conventional nuclear medical imaging uses radiopharmaceuticals labeled by single-photon emitters such as Tc-99m, I-123, or I-131 in vivo. Classical clinical examples are the study of bone metabolism by bone scintigraphy with the Tc-99m-labeled polyphosphonates or of iodine transport into the thyroid gland using Tc-99m-pertechnetate. With single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT), the distribution of these radiopharmaceuticals within the human body is three-dimensionally visualized. Contrary to positron emission tomography (PET), current SPECT technology does not allow the quantification of regional values of radioactivity tissue concentration as SPECT images are grossly compromised by artifacts caused by photon scatter and attenuation. With the advent of hybrid imaging systems combining a SPECT camera with an X-ray computerized (CT) scanner in one gantry, reliable corrections for these artifacts seem possible, allowing truly quantitative SPECT.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Iterative Reconstruction Partial Volume Effect Gamma Quantum Partial Volume Correction 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almeida P, Ribeiro MJ, Bottlaender M, Loc’h C, Langer O, Strul D, Hugonnard P, Grangeat P, Mazière B, Bendriem B (1999) Absolute quantitation of iodine-123 epidepride kinetics using single-photon emission tomography: comparison with carbon-11 epidepride and positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 26(12):1580–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anger HO (1958) Scintillation Camera. Rev Sci Instrum 29(1):27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anger HO (1964) Scintillation camera with multichannel collimators. J Nucl Med 5(7):515–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blankespoor SC, Xu X, Kaiki K, Brown JK, Tang HR, Cann CE, Hasegawa BH (1996) Attenuation correction of SPECT using X-ray CT on an emission-transmission CT system: myocardial perfusion assessment. IEEE T Nucl Sci 43(4):2263–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockisch A, Freudenberg LS, Schmidt D, Kuwert T (2009) Hybrid imaging by SPECT/CT and PET/CT: proven outcomes in cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 39(4):276–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Branderhorst W, Vastenhouw B, van der Have F, Blezer E, Bleeker W, Beekman F (2011) Targeted multi-pinhole SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(3):552–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen CH, Muzic RF Jr, Nelson AD, Adler LP (1998) A nonlinear spatially variant object-dependent system model for prediction of partial volume effects and scatter in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imag 17(2):214–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen J, Caputlu-Wilson S, Shi H, Galt J, Faber T, Garcia E (2006) Automated quality control of emission-transmission misalignment for attenuation correction in myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT-CT systems. J Nucl Cardiol 13(1):43–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME (2003) Physics in Nuclear Medicine. Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Da Silva AJ, Tang HR, Wong KH, Wu MC, Dae MW, Hasegawa BH (2001) Absolute quantification of regional myocardial uptake of 99mTc-sestamibi with SPECT: experimental validation in a porcine model. J Nucl Med 42(5):772–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewaraja Y, Ljungberg M, Koral K (2008) Effects of dead time and pile up on quantitative SPECT for I-131 dosimetric studies. J Nucl Med 49:47Google Scholar
  12. Dewaraja YK, Schipper MJ, Roberson PL, Wilderman SJ, Amro H, Regan DD, Koral KF, Kaminski MS, Avram AM (2010) 131I-tositumomab radioimmunotherapy: initial tumor dose–response results using 3-dimensional dosimetry including radiobiologic modeling. J Nucl Med 51(7):1155–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du Y, Tsui BMW, Frey EC (2005) Partial volume effect compensation for quantitative brain SPECT imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imag 24(8):969–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. El Fakhri GN, Buvat I, Pélégrini M, Benali H, Almeida P, Bendriem B, Todd-Pokropek A, Di Paola R (1999) Respective roles of scatter, attenuation, depth-dependent collimator response and finite spatial resolution in cardiac single-photon emission tomography quantitation: a monte carlo study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 26(5):437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Floyd CE et al (1984) Energy and spatial distribution of multiple order compton scatter in SPECT: a monte carlo investigation. Phys Med Biol 29(10):1217–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flux G, Bardies M, Monsieurs M, Savolainen S, Strands SE, Lassmann M (2006) The impact of PET and SPECT on dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy. Z Med Phys 16(1):47–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frey EC, Tsui BMW (1990) Parameterization of the scatter response function in SPECT imaging using monte carlo simulation. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 37(3):1308–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey EC, Tsui BMW (1994) Modeling the scatter response function in inhomogenous scattering media for SPECT. IEEE T Nucl Sci 41(4):1585–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Germain P, Baruthio J, Roul G, Dumitresco B (2000) First-pass MRI compartmental analysis at the chronic stage of infarction: myocardial flow reserve parametric map. In: Computers in Cardiology 2000, pp675–678Google Scholar
  20. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, Knapp WH, Munz DL (2000) Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med 27(2):161–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geworski L, Schaefer A, Knoop BO, Pinkert J, Plotkin M, Kirsch CM (2010) Physikalische Aspekte szintigraphisch basierter Dosimetrie bei nuklearmedizinischen Therapien. Nuklearmedizin 49(3):79–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilland DR, Jaszczak RJ, Liang Z, Greer KL, Coleman RE (1991) Quantitative SPECT brain imaging: effects of attenuation and detector responses. In: Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, 1991, Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE, vol. 1723, pp.1723–1727Google Scholar
  23. Gilman MD, Fischman AJ, Krishnasetty V, Halpern EF, Aquino SL (2006) Optimal CT breathing protocol for combined thoracic PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 187(5):1357–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gullberg GT et al (2010) Dynamic single photon emission computed tomography-basic principles and cardiac applications. Phys Med Biol 55(20):R111–R191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han J, Köstler H, Bennewitz C, Kuwert T, Hornegger J (2008) Computer-aided evaluation of anatomical accuracy of image fusion between X-ray CT and SPECT. Comput Med Imaging Graph 32(5):388–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffman EJ, Huang S-C, Phelps ME (1979) Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr 3(3):299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutton BF, Lau YH (1998) Application of distance-dependent resolution compensation and post-reconstruction filtering for myocardial SPECT. Phys Med Biol 43(6):1679–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaszczak RJ, Greer KL, Floyd CE Jr, Harris CC, Coleman RE (1984) Improved SPECT quantification using compensation for scattered photons. J Nucl Med 25(8):893–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kessler RM, Ellis JRJ, Eden M (1984) Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8(3):514–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohli V et al (1998a) Comparison of frequency-distance relationship and gaussian-diffusion-based methods of compensation for distance-dependent spatial resolution in SPECT imaging. Phys Med Biol 43(4):1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohli V, King MA, Tin-Su P, Glick SJ (1998b) Compensation for distance-dependent resolution in cardiac-perfusion SPECT: impact on uniformity of wall counts and wall thickness. IEEE T Nucl Sci 45(3):1104–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koral KF, Clinthorne NH, Leslie Rogers W (1986) Improving emission-computed-tomography quantification by compton-scatter rejection through offset windows. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 242(3):610–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koral KF, Wang X, Rogers WL, Clinthorne NH, Wang X (1988) SPECT compton-scattering correction by analysis of energy spectra. J Nucl Med 29(2):195–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. LaCroix KJ, Tsui BMW, Hasegawa BH, Brown JK (1994) Investigation of the use of X-ray CT images for attenuation compensation in SPECT. IEEE T Nucl Sci 41(6):2793–2799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis DH, Bluestone JP, Savina M, Zoller WH, Meshberg EB, Minoshima S (2006) Imaging cerebral activity in recovery from chronic traumatic brain injury: a preliminary report. J Neuroimaging 16(3):272–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ljungberg M, Strand S-E (1990) Scatter and attenuation correction in SPECT using density maps and monte carlo simulated scatter functions. J Nucl Med 31(9):1560–1567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (2007) Performance measurements of gamma cameras. In: NEMA NU 1-2007ed. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationGoogle Scholar
  38. Nömayr A, Römer W, Strobel D, Bautz W, Kuwert T (2006) Anatomical accuracy of hybrid SPECT/spiral CT in the lower spine. Nucl Med Commun 27(6):521–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ogawa K, Harata Y, Ichihara T, Kubo A, Hashimoto S (1991) A practical method for position-dependent Compton-scatter correction in single photon emission CT. IEEE Trans Med Imag 10(3):408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pretorius PH, King MA (2009) Diminishing the impact of the partial volume effect in cardiac SPECT perfusion imaging. Med Phys 36(1):105–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pretorius PH et al (1998) 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(2):407–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Römer W, Reichel N, Vija HA, Nickel I, Hornegger J, Bautz W, Kuwert T (2006) Isotropic reconstruction of SPECT data using OSEM3D: Correlation with CT. Acad Radiol 13(4):496–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenthal MS, Cullom J, Hawkins W, Moore SC, Tsui BMW, Yester M (1995) Quantitative SPECT imaging: a review and recommendations by the focus committee of the society of nuclear medicine computer and instrumentation council. J Nucl Med 36(8):1489–1513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rousset O, Ma Y, Kamber M, Evans AC (1993) 3D simulations of radiotracer uptake in deep nuclei of human brain. Comput Med Imaging Graph 17(4–5):373–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rousset OG, Ma Y, Evans AC (1998) Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med 39(5):904–911PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandström M, Garske U, Granberg D, Sundin A, Lundqvist H (2010) Individualized dosimetry in patients undergoing therapy with 177Lu-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octrcotate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 37(2):212–225Google Scholar
  47. Schramm NU, Ebel G, Engeland U, Schurrat T, Behe M, Behr TM (2003) High-resolution SPECT using multipinhole collimation. IEEE T Nucl Sci 50(3):315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seo Y, Aparici CM, Cooperberg MR, Konety BR, Hawkins RA (2009) In vivo tumor grading of prostate cancer using quantitative 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. J Nucl Med 51(1):31–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shcherbinin S et al (2008) Accuracy of quantitative reconstructions in SPECT/CT imaging. Phys Med Biol 53(17):4595–4604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sidoti C, Agrillo U (2006) Chronic cortical stimulation for amyotropic lateral sclerosis: a report of four consecutive operated cases after a 2-year follow-up: technical case report. Neurosurgery 58(2):E384Google Scholar
  51. Soret M, Koulibaly PM, Darcourt J, Hapdey S, Buvat I (2003) Quantitative accuracy of dopaminergic neurotransmission imaging with 123I SPECT. J Nucl Med 44(7):1184–1193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Tang HR, Brown JK, Hasegawa BH (1996) Use of X-ray CT-defined regions of interest for the determination of SPECT recovery coefficients. In: Nuclear Science Symposium, 1996 Conference Record, IEEE, vol.1843, pp1840–1844 Google Scholar
  53. Tsui BM, Frey EC, Zhao X, Lalush DS, Johnston RE, McCartney WH (1994) The importance and implementation of accurate 3D compensation methods for quantitative SPECT. Phys Med Biol 39(3):509–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vandervoort E et al (2007) Implementation of an iterative scatter correction, the influence of attenuation map quality and their effect on absolute quantitation in SPECT. Phys Med Biol 52(5):1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF (2006) Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions1. Radiology 238(2):405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wells RG, Celler A, Harrop R (1998) Analytical calculation of photon distributions in SPECT projections. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 45(6):3202–3214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zaidi H, Hasegawa B (2003) Determination of the attenuation map in emission tomography. J Nucl Med 44(2):291–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaidi H, Koral K (2006) Scatter correction strategies in emission tomography. In: Quantitative Analysis in Nuclear Medicine Imaginged. Springer US, pp 205–235Google Scholar
  59. Zaidi H, Frey EC, Tsui BMW (2006) Collimator-detector response compensation in SPECT. In: Quantitative Analysis in Nuclear Medicine Imaginged. Springer US, pp 141–166Google Scholar
  60. Zeintl J, Vija AH, Yahil A, Hornegger J, Kuwert T (2010) Quantitative accuracy of clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction. J Nucl Med 51(6):921–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1. Nuklearmedizinische KlinikUniversität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options