Evaluation of Images Depending on an Attenuation Correction in a Brain PET/CT Scan

  • Choi, Eun-Jin (Department of Public Health and Medicine, Dongshin University Graduate School) ;
  • Jeong, Mon-Taeg (Department of Radiological Science, Dongshin University) ;
  • Dong, Kyung-Rae (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Kwak, Jong-Gil (Department of Public Health and Medicine, Dongshin University Graduate School) ;
  • Choi, Ji-Won (Department of Radiological Science, Jeonju University) ;
  • Ryu, Jae-Kwang (Depatment of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center)
  • Received : 2018.07.26
  • Accepted : 2018.09.28
  • Published : 2018.12.31

Abstract

A Hoffman 3D Brain Phantom was used to evaluate two PET/CT scanners, BIO_40 and D_690, according to the radiation dose of CT (low, medium and high) at a fixed kilo-voltage-peak (kVp) with the tube current(mA) varied in 17~20 stages(Bio_40 PET/CT scanner: the tube voltage was fixed to 120 kVp, the effective tube current(mAs) was increased from 33 mAs to 190 mAs in 10 mAs increments, D_690 PET/CT scanner: the tube voltage was fixed to 140 kVp, tube current(mA) was increased from 10 mAs to 200 mAs in 10 mAs increments). After obtaining the PET image, an attenuation correction was conducted based on the attenuation map, which led to an analysis of the difference in the image. First, the ratio of white to gray matter for each scanner was examined by comparing the coefficient of variation (CV) depending on the average ratio. In addition, a blind test was carried out to evaluate the image. According to the study results, the BIO_40 and D_690 scanners showed a <1% change in CV value due to the tube current conversion. The change in the coefficients of white and gray matter showed that the Z value was negative for both scanners, indicating that the coefficient of gray matter was higher than that of white matter. Moreover, no difference was observed when the images were compared in a blind test.

Keywords

References

  1. Antoch G, Saoud N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller S, Beye T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF and Freudenberg LS. 2004. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography andcomputed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J. Clin. Oncol. 22(21):4357-4368. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.120
  2. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitin D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, Altman H, Keidar Z and Lsrael O. 2003. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J. Nucl. Med. 44(8):1200-1209.
  3. Bettinardi V, Pagani E, Gilardi MC, Landoni C, Riddell C, Rizzo G, Castiqlioni I, Belluzzo D, Luciqnani G, Schubert S. and Fazio F. 1999. An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 26(5):447-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590050410
  4. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L and Nutt RJ. 2000. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. Nucl. Med. 41(8):1369-1379.
  5. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA and Phelps ME. 2002. Physics in Nuclear Medicine. 3rd ed. Saunders. Philadelphia.
  6. Chung JK and Lee MC. 2008. Nuclear medicine. 3rd ed. Korea medicine. Seoul.
  7. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M and Schelbert HR. 2007. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J. Nucl. Med. 48(Suppl 1):78S-88S.
  8. Kim JS, Lee JS and Cheon GJ. 2008. Physical Artifact Correction in Nuclear Medicine Imaging: Normalization and Attenuation Correction. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42(2):112-117.
  9. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T and Sashin D. 1998. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med. Phys. 25(10):2046-2053. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598392
  10. Son HK, Turkington TG, Kwon YY, Jung HJ and Kim HJ. 2005. Impact of Contrast Agent for PET Images with CT-based Attenuation Correction. Korean J. Med. Phys. 16(4):192-201.
  11. Von Schulthess GK. 2000. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur. Radiol. 10(Suppl 3):S377-S380. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00014098
  12. Xu EZ, Mullani NA, Gould KL and Anderson WL. 1991. A segmented attenuation correction for PET. J. Nucl. Med. 32(1):161-165.