4.6 Article

Model-based crosstalk compensation for simultaneous 99mTc/123I dual-isotope brain SPECT imaging

Journal

MEDICAL PHYSICS
Volume 34, Issue 9, Pages 3530-3543

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1118/1.2768863

Keywords

brain SPECT imaging; dual isotope; crosstalk compensation

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01-EB00288] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, we developed a model-based method to estimate and compensate for the crosstalk contamination in simultaneous 123 1 and Tc-99mm dual isotope brain single photo emission computed tomography imaging. The model-based crosstalk compensation (MBCC) includes detailed modeling of photon interactions inside both the object and the detector system. In the method, scatter in the object is modeled using the effective source scatter estimation technique, including contributions from all the photon emissions. The effects of the collimator-detector response, including the penetration and scatter components due to high-energy 1231 photons, are modeled using precalculated tables of Monte Carlo simulated point-source response functions obtained from sources in air at various distances from the face of the collimator. The model-based crosstalk estimation method was combined with iterative reconstruction based compensation to reduce contamination due to crosstalk. The MBCC method was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulated and physical phantom experimentally acquired simultaneous dual-isotope data. Results showed that, for both experimental and simulation studies, the model-based method provided crosstalk estimates that were in good agreement with the true crosstalk. Compensation using MBCC improved image contrast and removed the artifacts for both Monte Carlo simulated and experimentally acquired data. The results were in good agreement with images acquired without any. crosstalk contamination. (c) 2007 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available