Energy‐based scatter estimation in clinical PET

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundScatter correction (SC) is essential in PET for accurate quantitative imaging. The state‐of‐the‐art SC method is single‐scatter simulation (SSS). Although this method is usually robust and accurate, it can fail in some situations, for example when there is motion between the CT and PET scans in PET/CT. Therefore, it is of interest to consider other SC methods.PurposeIn this work, an energy‐based scatter estimation (EBS) method is described in detail, tested in phantoms and patients, and compared to SSS.MethodsThis version of EBS was developed for list‐mode data from Biograph Vision‐600 PET/CT scanner. EBS is based on digitized 2D energy histograms in each bin of a coarsely sampled PET sinogram, either with or without time of flight (TOF). The histograms are modeled as a noisy realization of a linear combination of nine basis functions whose parameters were derived from a measurement of the 511‐keV photopeak spectrum as well as Monte‐Carlo simulations of the scattering process. EBS uses an iterative expectation maximization approach to determine the coefficients in the linear combination, and from this estimates the scatter. The investigation was restricted to 18F‐based PET data in which the acquired number of counts was similar to the levels seen in oncological whole‐body PET/CT scans. To evaluate the performance, phantom scans were used that involved the NEMA NU2‐2018 protocol, a slab phantom, an NU 2‐1994 phantom, a cardiac phantom in an anthropomorphic chest phantom, and a uniformly‐filled torso phantom with a bladder phantom slightly outside the axial field of view. Contrast recovery (CR) and other parameters were evaluated in images reconstructed with SSS and EBS. Furthermore, FDG PET scans of seven lung cancer patients were used in the evaluation. Standardized uptake values (SUV) based on SSS and EBS were compared in 27 lesions.ResultsEBS and SSS images were visually similar in all cases except the torso + bladder phantom, where the EBS was much closer to the expected uniform image. The NU2‐2018 analysis indicated a 2% scatter residual in EBS images compared to 3% with SSS, and 10% higher background variability, which is a surrogate for image noise. The cardiac phantom scan showed that CR was 98.2% with EBS and 99.6% with SSS, and that the SSS sinogram had values greater than the net‐true emission sinogram, indicating a slight overcorrection in the case of SSS. In the lesion SUV comparison in patient scans, EBS correlated strongly (R2 = 0.9973) with SSS, and SUV based on EBS were systematically 0.1 SUV lower. In the case of the torso + bladder phantom portion, the SSS image of the torso + bladder phantom was 299% times hotter than expected in one area, due to scatter estimation error, compared to 16% colder with EBS.ConclusionsIn evaluating clinically relevant parameters such as SUV in focal lesions, EBS and SSS give almost the same results. In phantoms, some scatter figures of merit were slightly improved by use of EBS, though an image variability figure of merit was slightly degraded. In typical oncological whole‐body PET/CT, EBS may be a suitable replacement for SSS, especially when SSS fails due to technical problems during the scan.