JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JNM
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Xiao, J.
Right arrow Articles by Beekman, F. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Xiao, J.
Right arrow Articles by Beekman, F. J.

Evaluation of 3D Monte Carlo–Based Scatter Correction for 99mTc Cardiac Perfusion SPECT

Jianbin Xiao1,2, Tim C. de Wit1,2, Steven G. Staelens3 and Freek J. Beekman1,2

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2 Department of Pharmacology and Anatomy, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and 3 Department of Medical Imaging and Signal Processing, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium


Figure 1
View larger version (121K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.  Photographs of small thorax phantom (A), large thorax phantom (B), breast attachments (C), and myocardial insert with solid defect set (D). (Images courtesy of Data Spectrum Corp.)

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.  Comparisons of measured (Meas) and simulated (Simu) point spread functions in water-filled cylinder phantom and in air.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (32K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.  Illustrations of spherically sampled apex and cylindrically sampled myocardial wall in circumferential plane (A), locations of 2 defect regions (l) and background region (b) in circumferential plane (B), and location of region U in circumferential plane (C).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (45K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.  (A) Top row: short-axis (SAX) views of reconstructions, postfiltered by 3D gaussian filter ({sigma} = 0.48 cm). Associated noise level is illustrated in each image. Bottom row: corresponding vertical long-axis (VLA) images. (B and C) Vertical profiles through inferior defect (B) and horizontal profiles (C) in SAX images (each profile was normalized to its maximal pixel value). A = images obtained with OS-EM incorporating only attenuation correction.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.  (A) Average defect contrast as function of average noise in myocardium for 4 different phantom configurations for different reconstruction algorithms. Error bars represent SE for both noise and contrast. (B) Separate plots for each phantom configuration.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (9K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.  Comparison of the ability of the 3 reconstruction algorithms to differentiate hearts with defects from hearts without defects, for all phantom configurations.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.