Abstract
We present the comparative study of the analytical forward model and the statistical simulation of the Compton single scatter in the positron emission tomography. The formula of the forward model has been obtained using the single scatter simulation approximation under simplified assumptions, and therefore we calculate scatter projections using independent Monte Carlo simulation mimicking the scatter physics. The numerical comparative study has been performed using a digital cylindrical phantom filled in with water and containing spherical sources of emission activity located at the central and several displaced positions. Good fits of the formula-based and statistically generated profiles of scatter projections are observed in the presented numerical results.
Funding source: National Institutes of Health
Award Identifier / Grant number: R01-EB023274
Award Identifier / Grant number: R01-CA113941
Funding source: Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Award Identifier / Grant number: 0315-2016-0003
Funding statement: This work was supported in part by the NIH grants R01-EB023274 and R01-CA113941. The first author was supported in part by the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (project no. 0315-2016-0003).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Per Christian Hansen, Joel Karp and Lucretiu Popescu for the fruitful discussions. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
[1] D. S. Anikonov, A. E. Kovtanyuk and I. V. Prokhorov, Transport Equation and Tomography, Inverse Ill-posed Probl. Ser. 30, VSP, Boston, 2002. Search in Google Scholar
[2] E. Berg and S. R. Cherry, Innovations in instrumentation for positron emission tomography, Semin. Nucl. Med. 48 (2018), 311–331. 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02.006Search in Google Scholar
[3] Y. Berker and Y. Li, Attenuation correction in emission tomography – A review, Med. Phys. 43 (2016), 807–832. 10.1118/1.4938264Search in Google Scholar
[4] I. Buvat, I. Castiglioni, J. Feuardent and M. C. Gilardi, Unified description and validation of Monte Carlo simulators in PET, Phys. Med. Biol. 50 (2005), 329–346. 10.1109/NSSMIC.2003.1352411Search in Google Scholar
[5] M. Conti, I. Hong and C. Michel, Reconstruction of scattered and unscattered PET coincidences using TOF and energy information, Phys. Med. Biol. 57 (2012), 307–317. 10.1088/0031-9155/57/15/N307Search in Google Scholar
[6] U. Fano, L. V. Spencer and M. J. Berger, Penetration and Diffusion of X-Rays, Encyclopedia Phys. 38/2, Springer, Berlin, 1959. 10.1007/978-3-642-45920-7_2Search in Google Scholar
[7] J. E. Gillam and M. Rafecas, Monte-Carlo simulations and image reconstruction for novel imaging scenarios in emission tomography, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 809 (2016), 76–88. 10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.084Search in Google Scholar
[8]
J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer,
Tables of X-Ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements
[9] G. J. Jensen and R. D. Kornberg, Defocus-gradient corrected back-projection, Ultramicroscopy 84 (2000), 57–64. 10.1016/S0304-3991(00)00005-XSearch in Google Scholar
[10] K. C. Jones, G. Redler, A. Templeton, D. Bernard, J. V. Turian and J. C. H. Chu, Characterization of Compton-scatter imaging with an analytical simulation method, Phys. Med. Biol. 63 (2018), Article ID 025016. 10.1088/1361-6560/aaa200Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[11] T. Jones and D. Townsend, History and future technical innovation in positron emission tomography, J. Med. Imag. 4 (2017), Article ID 011013. 10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.011013Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[12] I. G. Kazantsev, J. Klukowska, G. T. Herman and L. Cernetic, Fully three-dimensional defocus-gradient corrected backprojection in cryoelectron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 110 (2010), 1128–1142. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.04.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[13] I. G. Kazantsev, S. Matej and R. M. Lewitt, Geometric model of single scatter in PET, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, IEEE Press, Piscataway (2006), 2740–2743. 10.1109/NSSMIC.2006.356446Search in Google Scholar
[14] I. G. Kazantsev, U. L. Olsen, H. F. Poulsen and P. C. Hansen, A spectral geometric model for Compton single scatter in PET based on the single scatter simulation approximation, Inverse Problems 34 (2018), Article ID 024002. 10.1088/1361-6420/aaa05dSearch in Google Scholar
[15] A. Kim and I. V. Prokhorov, Monte Carlo method for non-stationary radiative transfer equation in inhomogeneous media, Proc. SPIE 10035 (2016), Article ID 100350. 10.1117/12.2247997Search in Google Scholar
[16] J. Klukowska and G. T. Herman, Reconstruction from microscopic projections with defocus-gradient and attenuation effects, Computational Methods for Three-Dimensional Microscopy Reconstruction, Birkhauser, Basel (2014), 157–186. 10.1007/978-1-4614-9521-5_7Search in Google Scholar
[17] M. Kondic and C. Jupiter, Noninvasive method for determining the three-dimensional density distribution in an inspected object employing modulation of compton-scattered gamma signals, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference, IEEE Press, Piscataway (2010), 70–79. 10.1109/NSSMIC.2010.5873719Search in Google Scholar
[18] P. L’Ecuyer and S. Cote, Implementing a random number package with splitting facilities, ACM Trans. Math. Software 17 (1991), 98–111. 10.1145/103147.103158Search in Google Scholar
[19] D. Narayanan and W. A. Berg, Dedicated breast gamma camera imaging and breast PET: Current status and future directions, PET Clinics 13 (2018), 363–381. 10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[20] F. Natterer and F. Wübbeling, Mathematical Methods in Image Reconstruction, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001. 10.1137/1.9780898718324Search in Google Scholar
[21] S. J. Norton, Compton scattering tomography, J. Appl. Phys. 76 (1994), 2007–2015. 10.1063/1.357668Search in Google Scholar
[22] T. Riauka and W. Gortel, Photon propagation and detection in single-photon emission computed tomography – an analytical approach, Med. Phys. 21 (1994), 1311–1321. 10.1118/1.597201Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[23] G. Rigaud and B. N. Hahn, 3D Compton scattering imaging and contour reconstruction for a class of Radon transforms, Inverse Problems 34 (2018), Article ID 075004. 10.1088/1361-6420/aabf0bSearch in Google Scholar
[24] G. Rigaud, M. K. Nguyen and A. K. Louis, Modeling and simulation results on a new Compton scattering tomography modality, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 33 (2013), 28–44. 10.1016/j.simpat.2012.03.007Search in Google Scholar
[25] H. Sun and S. Pistorius, A geometric model to characterize annihilation positions associated with scattered coincidences in PET: A simulation-based study, IEEE Trans. Comput. Imag. 2 (2016), 101–108. 10.1109/TCI.2016.2549742Search in Google Scholar
[26] T. T. Truong and M. K. Nguyen, Recent developments on Compton scatter tomography: Theory and numerical simulations, Numerical Simulation—From Theory to Industry. Chapter 6, INTECH, London (2012), 101–128. 10.5772/50012Search in Google Scholar
[27] C. C. Watson, New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 47 (2000), 1587–94. 10.1109/NSSMIC.1999.842888Search in Google Scholar
[28] J. W. Webber and S. Holman, Microlocal analysis of a spindle transform, Inverse Probl. Imaging 13 (2019), 231–261. 10.3934/ipi.2019013Search in Google Scholar
[29] J. W. Webber and W. R. B. Lionheart, Three dimensional Compton scattering tomography, Inverse Problems 34 (2018), Article ID 084001. 10.1088/1361-6420/aac51eSearch in Google Scholar
[30] I. P. Yarovenko, Numerical experiments with the inhomogeneity indicator in positron emission tomography, J. Appl. Indust. Math. 2 (2012), 261–268. 10.1134/S1990478912020160Search in Google Scholar
[31] H. Zaidi, Scatter modelling and correction strategies in fully 3-D PET, Nucl. Med. Commun. 22 (2001), 1181–1184. 10.1097/00006231-200111000-00003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
