Previous Page  13 / 17 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 13 / 17 Next Page
Page Background

allied

academies

Page 46

Notes:

April 15-16, 2019 | Frankfurt, Germany

Applied Physics & Laser, Optics and Photonics

International Conference on

Materials Science and Nanotechnology | Volume: 3

Evaluation impact count recovery model on standardized uptake value used in PET-CT

Hamed Farag

and

Ahmed Abdel Mohymen

Cairo University, Egypt

E

valuation of effect of lesion size and sphere to

background ratio (SBR) on the threshold used

for PET tumor volume delineation.

Evaluation effect and accuracy of recovery

coefficient (RC) model on standards uptake value

(SUV) of different inner size diameters filled with

different activity concentration and apply this

model on small cohort of patients and construct

Look Up Table (LUT) for different lesions with

different sizes. A cylindrical phantomequipped with

different volume hollow spheres was used. Two

different reconstruction algorithms were applied in

this study; one of them modified with Point Spread

Function (the other did not base on PSF).

Partial volume effect (PVE) was highly dominant in

low uptake spheres although it had large size, i.e.,

not only small size object affecting by PVE but also

low activity concentration object. For true volume

measurements, practically TrueX algorithm was

more accurate when activity measurements dal

with true measured volumes.

Also, the results showed using that phantom

study had successfully provided “Look Up Table”

for the partial volume correction of spherical

lesions at maximum measured activity ratios that

were typically noted in human PET-CT imaging.

The present study demonstrated that SBR

have not significant effect on the estimation of

volumes from PET images in the different SBRs.

The only determining factor for the threshold for

PET volume estimation was the size of the sphere.

Superior percent accuracy was shown for OSEM

algorithm when applying RC model to corrected

SUV values and OSEM was more efficient and less

error variation with respect to sphere volume,

but in case of uncorrected data, no remarkable

difference between TrueX and OSEM algorithm

had been observed.

e

:

hamedfarag103@hotmail.com