SPECT/CT 영상에서 에너지창 기반 산란보정과 CT 기반 산란보정 방법의 정량적 정확성 비교
The Comparison of Quantitative Accuracy between Energy Window-Based and CT-Based Scatter Correction Method in SPECT/CT Images
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In SPECT image, scatter count is the cause of quantitative count error and image quality degradation. This study is to evaluate the accuracy of CT based SC(CTSC) and energy window based SC(EWSC) as the comparison with existing Non SC. SPECT/CT images were obtained after filling air in order to acquire a reference image without the influence of scatter count inside the Triple line insert phantom setting hot rod(99mTc 74.0 MBq) in the middle and each SPECT/CT image was obtained each separately after filling water instead of air in order to derive the influence of scatter count under the same conditions. For EWSC, 9 sub-energy windows were set additionally in addition to main energy window(140 keV, 20%) and then, images were acquired at the same time and five types of EWSC including DPW(dual photo-peak window)10%, DEW(dual energy window)20%, TEW(triple energy window)10%, TEW5.0%, TEW2.5% were used. Under the condition without fluctuations in primary count, total count was measured by drawing volume of interest (VOI) in the images of the two conditions and then, the ratio of scatter count of total counts was calculated as percent scatter fraction(% SF) and the count error with image filled with water was evaluated with percent normalized mean-square error(% NMSE) based on the image filled with air. Based on the image filled with air, %SF of images filled with water to which each SC method was applied is non scatter correction(NSC) 37.44, DPW 27.41, DEW 21.84, TEW10% 19.60, TEW5% 17.02, TEW2.5% 14.68, CTSC 5.57 and the scatter counts were removed the most in CTSC and %NMSE is NSC 35.80, DPW 14.28, DEW 7.81, TEW10% 5.94, TEW5% 4.21, TEW2.5% 2.96, CTSC 0.35 and the error in CTSC was found to be the lowest. In SPECT/CT images, the application of each scatter correction method used in the experiment could improve the quantitative count error caused by the influence of scatter count. In particular, CTSC showed the lowest %NMSE(=0.35) compared to existing EWSC methods, enabling relatively accurate scatter correction.
Abstract
In SPECT image, scatter count is the cause of quantitative count error and image quality degradation. This study is to evaluate the accuracy of CT based SC(CTSC) and energy window based SC(EWSC) as the comparison with existing Non SC. SPECT/CT images were obtained after filling air in order to acquire a reference image without the influence of scatter count inside the Triple line insert phantom setting hot rod(99mTc 74.0 MBq) in the middle and each SPECT/CT image was obtained each separately after filling water instead of air in order to derive the influence of scatter count under the same conditions. For EWSC, 9 sub-energy windows were set additionally in addition to main energy window(140 keV, 20%) and then, images were acquired at the same time and five types of EWSC including DPW(dual photo-peak window)10%, DEW(dual energy window)20%, TEW(triple energy window)10%, TEW5.0%, TEW2.5% were used. Under the condition without fluctuations in primary count, total count was measured by drawing volume of interest (VOI) in the images of the two conditions and then, the ratio of scatter count of total counts was calculated as percent scatter fraction(% SF) and the count error with image filled with water was evaluated with percent normalized mean-square error(% NMSE) based on the image filled with air. Based on the image filled with air, %SF of images filled with water to which each SC method was applied is non scatter correction(NSC) 37.44, DPW 27.41, DEW 21.84, TEW10% 19.60, TEW5% 17.02, TEW2.5% 14.68, CTSC 5.57 and the scatter counts were removed the most in CTSC and %NMSE is NSC 35.80, DPW 14.28, DEW 7.81, TEW10% 5.94, TEW5% 4.21, TEW2.5% 2.96, CTSC 0.35 and the error in CTSC was found to be the lowest. In SPECT/CT images, the application of each scatter correction method used in the experiment could improve the quantitative count error caused by the influence of scatter count. In particular, CTSC showed the lowest %NMSE(=0.35) compared to existing EWSC methods, enabling relatively accurate scatter correction.
참고문헌 (15)
- Cherry S, "Physics in nuclear medicine", pp.204~206 (2012), ELSEVIER
- Cherry S, "Physics in nuclear medicine", pp.147~154 (2012), ELSEVIER
- Changizi V, "Scatter correction for heart SPECT images using TEW method", J Appl Clin Med Phys, 9(3), pp.2767~ (2008)
- Farid K, "CT nonuniform attenuation and TEW scatter corrections in brain Tc-99m ECD SPECT", Clin Nucl Med, 36(8), pp.665~668 (2011)
- Beauregard JM, "Quantitative (177) Lu SPECT (QSPECT) imaging using a commercially available SPECT", CT system, 2011, pp.11, 56~66
- Dewaraja YK, "3-D Monte Carlo-Based Scatter Compensation in Quantitative I-131 SPECT Reconstruction", IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 53(1), pp.181~ (2006)
- Xiao J, "Evaluation of 3D Monte Carlo-based scatter correction for 99mTc cardiac perfusion SPECT", J Nucl Med, 47(10), pp.1662~1669 (2006)
- Cervo M, "Quantitative simultaneous 111In∕99mTc SPECT-CT of osteomyelitis", Med Phys, 40(8), pp.082501~ (2013)
- De Nijs R, "Improving quantitative dosimetry in(177)Lu-DOTATATE SPECT by energy window-based scatter corrections", Nucl Med Commun, 35(5), pp.522~533 (2014)
- Pretorius PH, "The channel ratio method of scatter correction for radionuclide image quantitation", J Nucl Med, 34(2), pp.330~335 (1993)
- Jaszczak RJ, "Improved SPECT quantification for scattered photons", J Nucl Med, 25, pp.893~900 (1984)
- Dewaraja YK, "Quantitative I-131SPECT with triple energy window Compton scatter correction", IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 45, pp.3109~3114 (1998)
- Ichihara T, "Compton scatter compensation using the triple-energy window method for single-and dual-isotope SPECT", J Nucl Med, 34(12), pp.2216~2221 (1993)
- Konik A, "Evaluation of attenuation and scatter correction requirements in small animal PET and SPECT imaging", pp.2010
- Ljungberg M, "Comparison of four scatter correction methods using Monte Carlo simulated source distributions", J Nucl Med, 35(1), pp.143~151 (1994)