Browse > Article

Quantitative Comparisons between CT and $^{68}Ge$ Transmission Attenuation Corrected $^{18}F-FDG$ PET Images: Measured Attenuation Correction vs. Segmented Attenuation Correction  

Choi, Joon-Young (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Woo, Sang-Keun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Choi, Yong (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Choe, Yearn-Seong (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Lee, Kyung-Han (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Kim, Byung-Tae (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / v.41, no.1, 2007 , pp. 49-53 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: It was reported that CT-based measured attenuation correction (CT-MAC) produced radioactivity concentration values significantly higher than $^{68}Ge$-based segmented attenuation correction (Ge-SAC) in PET images. However, it was unknown whether the radioactivity concentration difference resulted from different sources (CT vs. Ge) or types (MAC vs. SAC) of attenuation correction (AC). We evaluated the influences of the source and type of AC on the radioactivity concentration differences between reconstructed PET images in normal subjects and patients. Material and Methods: Five normal subjects and 35 patients with a known or suspected cancer underwent $^{18}F-FDG$ PET/CT. In each subject, attenuation corrected PET images using OSEM algorithm (28 subsets, 2 iterations) were reconstructed by 4 methods: CT-MAC, CT-SAC, Ge-MAC, and Ge-SAC. The physiological uptake in normal subjects and pathological uptake in patients were quantitatively compared between the PET images according to the source and type of AC. Results: The SUVs of physiological uptake measured in CT-MAC PET images were significantly higher than other 3 differently corrected PET images. Maximum SUVs of the 145 foci with abnormal FDG uptake in CT-MAC images were significantly highest among 4 differently corrected PET images with a difference of 2.4% to 5.1% (p<0.001). The SUVs of pathological uptake in Ge-MAC images were significantly higher than those in CT-SAC and Ge-MAC PET images (p<0.001). Conclusion: Quantitative radioactivity values were highest in CT-MAC PET images. The adoption of MAC may make a more contribution than the adoption of CT attenuation map to such differences.
Keywords
PET; $^{18}F-FDG$; attenuation correction; CT; $^{68}Ge$;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, Marshall LT, Links JM, Kohlmyer S, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuationcorrected images. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1137-43
2 Kamel E, Hany TF, Burger C, Treyer V, Lonn AH, von Schulthess GK, et al. CT vs $^{68}Ge$ attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT system: evaluation of the effect of lowering the CT tube current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2002;29:346-50   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22: 4357-68   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Xu EZ, Mullani NA, Gould KL, Anderson WL. A segmented attenuation correction for PET. J Nucl Med 1991;32:161-5
5 Bong J-K, Kim H-J, Son H-K, Park Y-Y, Park H-J, Yun M, et al. Assessment of attenuation correction techniques with a $^{137}Cs$ point source. Korean J Nucl Med 2005;39:57-68
6 Bettinardi V, Pagani E, Gilardi MC, Landoni C, Riddell C, Rizzo G, et al. An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:447-58   DOI
7 Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200-9
8 Von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol 2000;10(Suppl 3):S377-80   DOI
9 Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [$^{18}F$]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326-35   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998;25: 2046-53   DOI   ScienceOn