OtherClinical Investigations

Cause and Magnitude of the Error Induced by Oral CT Contrast Agent in CT-Based Attenuation Correction of PET Emission Studies

Elena Dizendorf, Thomas F. Hany, Alfred Buck, Gustav K. von Schulthess and Cyrill Burger
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2003, 44 (5) 732-738;

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • FIGURE 1.
    FIGURE 1.

    Linear attenuation coefficient extrapolated from narrow-beam measurements at different photon energies (4). Plots 1 and 2 represent content of iodine and barium in oral CT contrast agents Gastrografin and Micropaque Scanner, respectively, mixed with water, cortical bone (plot 3), and soft tissue (plot 4). High attenuation of bone at 511 keV is due to its high density.

  • FIGURE 2.
    FIGURE 2.

    Attenuation images of NEMA phantom containing 2 cylindric acrylic inserts with oral CT contrast agent in clinical concentrations. Row A shows orthogonal CT sections (140 kV, 160 mA); row B shows matched PET transmission images acquired with 68Ge rods in 30 min. Slight attenuation increase originating from insert walls is notable in transmission images. 1 = Micropaque Scanner; 2 = Gastrografin; 3 = water.

  • FIGURE 3.
    FIGURE 3.

    Example of the performed analysis. (A) CT image with thresholds [−160 HU, 240 HU] showing regions that define oral CT contrast, tumor, and reference tissue. (B) CT image after replacement of contrast-enhanced pixels by normal values. (C) PET emission image attenuation corrected with CT image A. (D) PET emission image attenuation corrected with CT image B, resulting in approximation of true 18F-FDG uptake. (E) Difference image C − D normalized to D, showing percentage error due to attenuation correction with CT contrast-enhanced pixels. Maximal difference is 9.6%.

  • FIGURE 4.
    FIGURE 4.

    Average attenuation of 2 oral CT contrast agents at 3 different concentrations measured in CT and with PET 511-keV transmission scans. CT attenuation increases with increasing concentration of contrast agent. PET attenuation, however, depends minimally on concentration of contrast agent and is only slightly higher than attenuation of water. Transformation applied by scanner software to convert CT numbers into PET attenuation coefficients in Discovery LS scanner is indicated as dashed line (3). If it is applied to measured CT numbers, too high PET attenuation coefficients are calculated (□).

  • FIGURE 5.
    FIGURE 5.

    Average HU and SD measured in different sections of gastrointestinal tract for control group studied without oral contrast agent and for patient group.

  • FIGURE 6.
    FIGURE 6.

    Overestimation of SUV in image regions containing oral CT contrast agent. Shown is percentage SUV error induced by CT-based PET attenuation correction with contrast enhancement present in CT images.

  • FIGURE 7.
    FIGURE 7.

    Overestimation of SUV in image regions absent of oral CT contrast agent. Shown is percentage SUV error induced by CT-based PET attenuation correction with CT contrast enhancement present in other parts of image.

Tables

  • TABLE 1

    CT Values Measured in ROIs of Different Gastrointestinal Tract Sections

    SectionControl groupPatient group
    Mean ± SDMaximumnMean ± SDMaximumn
    Stomach25.9 ± 18.1175.010175.6 ± 42.2366.09
    Small bowel40.5 ± 9.6146.010302.6 ± 65.8485.010
    Ascending colon17.1 ± 15.1171.010335.0 ± 115.8520.05
    Transverse colon18.9 ± 20.8118.010350.0 ± 11.3488.04
    Descending colon33.5 ± 15.9156.010319.7 ± 45.3440.03
    Rectosigmoid23.9 ± 9.0170.010201.0 ± 35.1340.02

    • Data are in HU.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles