★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Agriculture and Biomedical OPEN ACCESS

Quantifying recovery coefficients for partial volume effect correction in pet/ct: an anthropomorphic phantom approach

Nickolas Miser
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Canada
tajabe 2025
VOL. 7 / NO. 04 APRIL
FULL TEXT PP. 1-5
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 7
ISSUE 04
YEAR 2025
PAGES 1-5
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

The partial volume effect (PVE) in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging leads to inaccurate quantification of radiotracer uptake, particularly in small structures or regions with low activity. This study proposes a method for calculating recovery coefficients (RCs) to correct for the PVE in PET/CT images using a customized anthropomorphic body phantom. The phantom was designed to replicate human body anatomy, including various organs and tissues, with controlled activity distributions. PET/CT scans were acquired at different spatial resolutions, and the RCs were derived by comparing the measured and true activity concentrations. Our findings demonstrate that the RCs vary based on the size and shape of the region of interest (ROI) and the resolution of the PET scan. These recovery coefficients can be applied to improve quantitative accuracy in PET/CT imaging, particularly for small lesions and organs. The results highlight the effectiveness of using a customized anthropomorphic phantom for PVE correction and the potential clinical benefits of this method in diagnostic imaging.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

PET/CT Imaging Partial Volume Effect (PVE) Recovery Coefficients (RCs)
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Krempser AR, Ichinose RM, de Sá AMM, de Oliveira SMV, Carneiro MP. Recovery coefficients determination for partial volume effect correction in oncological PET/CT images considering the effect of activity outside the field of view. Ann Nuclear Med. 2013;27:924–30. Article Google Scholar
  2. Gallivanone F, Canevari C, Gianolli L, Salvatore C, Della Rosa P, Gilardi M, et al. A partial volume effect correction tailored for 18F-FDG-PET oncological studies. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:780458. Article Google Scholar
  3. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:11S-20S. Article Google Scholar
  4. Wu Z, Guo B, Huang B, Hao X, Wu P, Zhao B, et al. Phantom and clinical assessment of small pulmonary nodules using Q. Clear reconstruction on a silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10328. Article MATH Google Scholar
  5. Lu S, Zhang P, Li C, Sun J, Liu W, Zhang P. A NIM PET/CT phantom for evaluating the PET image quality of micro-lesions and the performance parameters of CT. BMC Med Imaging. 2021;21:1–13. Article MATH Google Scholar
  6. Adler S, Seidel J, Choyke P, Knopp MV, Binzel K, Zhang J, et al. Minimum lesion detectability as a measure of PET system performance. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4:1–14. Article Google Scholar
  7. Øen SK, Aasheim LB, Eikenes L, Karlberg AM. Image quality and detectability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems—a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6:1–16. Article Google Scholar
  8. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.Article MATH Google Scholar
  9. Kessler RM, Ellis Jr JR, Eden M. Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. LWW; 1984.
  10. Bettinardi V, Castiglioni I, De Bernardi E, Gilardi M. PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2:199–218.Article MATH Google Scholar
  11. Alavi A, Werner TJ, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Zaidi H. Correction for partial volume effect is a must, not a luxury, to fully exploit the potential of quantitative PET imaging in clinical oncology. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20:1–3.Article MATH Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll B, Shek T, Vines D, Sun A, Jaffray D, Yeung I. Phantom validation of a conservation of activity-based partial volume correction method for arterial input function in dynamic PET imaging. Tomography. 2022;8:842–57.Article Google Scholar
  13. Grings A, Jobic C, Kuwert T, Ritt P. The magnitude of the partial volume effect in SPECT imaging of the kidneys: a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9:18.Article Google Scholar
  14. Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, Bural G, Surti S, Alavi A. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341–8.Article Google Scholar
  15. Hoffman EJ, Cutler PD, Guerrero TM, Digby WM, Mazziotta JC. Assessment of accuracy of PET utilizing a 3-D phantom to simulate the activity distribution of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1991;11:A17-25.Article Google Scholar
  16. Hoffman EJ, Huang S-C, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Computer Assist Tomogr. 1979;3:299–308. Article MATH Google Scholar