4.2 Article

A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images

期刊

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 341-348

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-009-0241-9

关键词

Partial volume correction; Positron emission tomography; Hot sphere/warm background phantom; Recovery coefficient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correction of the partial volume effect has been an area of great interest in the recent times in quantitative PET imaging and has been mainly studied with count recovery models based upon phantoms that incorporate hot spheres in a cold background. The goal of this research study was to establish a similar model that is closer to a biological imaging environment, namely hot spheres/lesions in a warm background and to apply this model in a small cohort of patients. A NEMA phantom with six spheres (diameters 1-3.7 cm) was filled with (18)FDG to give sphere:background activity ratios of 8:1, 6:1, and 4:1 for three different acquisitions on a Philips Allegro scanner. The hot sphere SUVmax and the background average SUV were measured for calculation of recovery coefficients (RCs). Using the RCs, the lesion diameters, and the lesion:background ratio, the SUVmax of 64 lesions from 17 patients with biopsy proven lung cancer were corrected. The RCs versus sphere diameters produced characteristic logarithmic curves for each phantom (RCs ranged from 80% to 11%). From a cohort of 17 patients with biopsy proven lung cancer, 64 lesions combined had a mean SUVmax of 7.0 and size of 2.5 cm. After partial volume correction of the SUVmax of each lesion, the average SUVmax increased to 15.5. Hot spheres in a warm background more closely resemble the actual imaging situation in a living subject when compared to hot spheres in a cold background. This method could facilitate generation of equipment specific recovery coefficients for partial volume correction. The clinical implications for the increased accuracy in SUV determination are certainly of potential value in oncologic imaging.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据