Cargando…

Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a correction for annihilation photon attenuation in small objects such as mice is necessary. The attenuation recovery for specific organs and subcutaneous tumors was investigated. A comparison between different attenuation correction methods was p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: El Ali, Henrik H., Bodholdt, Rasmus Poul, Jørgensen, Jesper Tranekjær, Myschetzky, Rebecca, Kjaer, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4665554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26859397
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics2040042
_version_ 1782403594757079040
author El Ali, Henrik H.
Bodholdt, Rasmus Poul
Jørgensen, Jesper Tranekjær
Myschetzky, Rebecca
Kjaer, Andreas
author_facet El Ali, Henrik H.
Bodholdt, Rasmus Poul
Jørgensen, Jesper Tranekjær
Myschetzky, Rebecca
Kjaer, Andreas
author_sort El Ali, Henrik H.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a correction for annihilation photon attenuation in small objects such as mice is necessary. The attenuation recovery for specific organs and subcutaneous tumors was investigated. A comparison between different attenuation correction methods was performed. Methods: Ten NMRI nude mice with subcutaneous implantation of human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) were scanned consecutively in small animal PET and CT scanners (MicroPET(TM) Focus 120 and ImTek’s MicroCAT(TM) II). CT-based AC, PET-based AC and uniform AC methods were compared. Results: The activity concentration in the same organ with and without AC revealed an overall attenuation recovery of 9–21% for MAP reconstructed images, i.e., SUV without AC could underestimate the true activity at this level. For subcutaneous tumors, the attenuation was 13 ± 4% (9–17%), for kidneys 20 ± 1% (19–21%), and for bladder 18 ± 3% (15–21%). The FBP reconstructed images showed almost the same attenuation levels as the MAP reconstructed images for all organs. Conclusions: The annihilation photons are suffering attenuation even in small subjects. Both PET-based and CT-based are adequate as AC methods. The amplitude of the AC recovery could be overestimated using the uniform map. Therefore, application of a global attenuation factor on PET data might not be accurate for attenuation correction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4665554
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46655542016-01-27 Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging El Ali, Henrik H. Bodholdt, Rasmus Poul Jørgensen, Jesper Tranekjær Myschetzky, Rebecca Kjaer, Andreas Diagnostics (Basel) Article The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a correction for annihilation photon attenuation in small objects such as mice is necessary. The attenuation recovery for specific organs and subcutaneous tumors was investigated. A comparison between different attenuation correction methods was performed. Methods: Ten NMRI nude mice with subcutaneous implantation of human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) were scanned consecutively in small animal PET and CT scanners (MicroPET(TM) Focus 120 and ImTek’s MicroCAT(TM) II). CT-based AC, PET-based AC and uniform AC methods were compared. Results: The activity concentration in the same organ with and without AC revealed an overall attenuation recovery of 9–21% for MAP reconstructed images, i.e., SUV without AC could underestimate the true activity at this level. For subcutaneous tumors, the attenuation was 13 ± 4% (9–17%), for kidneys 20 ± 1% (19–21%), and for bladder 18 ± 3% (15–21%). The FBP reconstructed images showed almost the same attenuation levels as the MAP reconstructed images for all organs. Conclusions: The annihilation photons are suffering attenuation even in small subjects. Both PET-based and CT-based are adequate as AC methods. The amplitude of the AC recovery could be overestimated using the uniform map. Therefore, application of a global attenuation factor on PET data might not be accurate for attenuation correction. MDPI 2012-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4665554/ /pubmed/26859397 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics2040042 Text en © 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
spellingShingle Article
El Ali, Henrik H.
Bodholdt, Rasmus Poul
Jørgensen, Jesper Tranekjær
Myschetzky, Rebecca
Kjaer, Andreas
Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title_full Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title_fullStr Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title_full_unstemmed Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title_short Importance of Attenuation Correction (AC) for Small Animal PET Imaging
title_sort importance of attenuation correction (ac) for small animal pet imaging
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4665554/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26859397
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics2040042
work_keys_str_mv AT elalihenrikh importanceofattenuationcorrectionacforsmallanimalpetimaging
AT bodholdtrasmuspoul importanceofattenuationcorrectionacforsmallanimalpetimaging
AT jørgensenjespertranekjær importanceofattenuationcorrectionacforsmallanimalpetimaging
AT myschetzkyrebecca importanceofattenuationcorrectionacforsmallanimalpetimaging
AT kjaerandreas importanceofattenuationcorrectionacforsmallanimalpetimaging