title: Comparative assessment of energy-mapping approaches in CT-based attenuation correction for PET.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Reliable quantification in positron emission tomography (PET) requires accurate attenuation correction of emission data, which in turn entails accurate determination of the attenuation map (µ-map) of the object under study. One of the main steps involved in CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) is energy-mapping, or the conversion of linear attenuation coefficients (µ) calculated at the effective CT energy to those corresponding to 511 keV.
  
  
  METHODS
  The aim of this study is to compare different energy-mapping techniques including scaling, segmentation, the hybrid method, the bilinear calibration curve technique and the dual-energy approach to generate the µ-maps required for attenuation correction. In addition, our newly proposed method involving a quadratic polynomial calibration curve was also assessed. The µ-maps generated for both phantom and clinical studies were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. A cylindrical polyethylene phantom containing different concentrations of K(2)HPO(4) in water was scanned and the µ-maps calculated from the corresponding CT images using the above-referenced energy-mapping methods. The CT images of five whole-body data sets acquired on a GE Discovery LS PET/CT scanner were employed to generate µ-maps using different energy-mapping approaches that were compared with the µ-maps generated at 511 keV using (68)Ge/(68)Ga rod sources. In another experiment, the evaluation was performed on PET images of a clinical study corrected for attenuation using µ-maps generated using the above described methods. The evaluation was performed for three different tissue types, namely, soft tissue, lung, and bone.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All energy-mapping methods yielded almost similar results for soft tissues. The mean relative differences between scaling, segmentation, hybrid, bilinear, and quadratic polynomial calibration curve methods and the transmission scan serving as reference were 6.60%, 6.56%, 6.60%, 5.96%, and 7.36%, respectively. However, the scaling method produced the largest difference (16%) for bone tissues. For lung tissues, the segmentation method produced the largest difference (14.9%). The results for reconstructed PET images followed a similar trend. For soft tissues, all energy-mapping methods yield results in nearly the same range. However, in bone tissues, the scaling method resulted in considerable bias in the µ-maps and the reconstructed PET images. The segmentation method also produced noticeable bias especially in regions with variable densities such as the lung, since a single µ is assigned to the lungs. Apart from the aforementioned case, despite small differences in the generated µ-maps, the use of different energy-mapping methods does not affect, to a visible or measurable extent, the reconstructed PET images.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mohammadreza_ay@tums.ac.ir
authors.forename: Mohammad R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Ay
authors.forename: Maryam
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Shirmohammad
authors.forename: Saeed
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sarkar
authors.forename: Arman
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Rahmim
authors.forename: Habib
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zaidi
mesh_terms: D002138:Calibration; D006801:Humans; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):291-315
references.pmid: 12571222
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1812-23
references.pmid: 18418597
references.citation: Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):2046-53
references.pmid: 9800714
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jan;31(1):44-51
references.pmid: 14551751
references.citation: Nucl Med Commun. 2006 Apr;27(4):339-46
references.pmid: 16531919
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2008 Jul;49(7):1047-52
references.pmid: 18552154
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2006 Feb;16(2):256-68
references.pmid: 16341833
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2005 Mar;46(3):436-43
references.pmid: 15750156
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):276-90
references.pmid: 12571221
references.citation: Semin Nucl Med. 2003 Jul;33(3):166-79
references.pmid: 12931319
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Feb;186(2):308-19
references.pmid: 16423932
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Nov 7;53(21):5947-65
references.pmid: 18836219
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002 Jul;29(7):922-7
references.pmid: 12111133
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Aug 21;53(16):4417-29
references.pmid: 18670051
references.citation: Radiology. 2007 Sep;244(3):639-42
references.pmid: 17709821
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2004 Jun;14(6):995-9
references.pmid: 15052502
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 May;31(5):761-82
references.pmid: 15057488
references.citation: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979 Dec;3(6):740-8
references.pmid: 512106
references.citation: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006 Jun;53(3):1230-1237
references.pmid: 16932806
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2003 Nov;44(11):1855-61
references.pmid: 14602870
references.citation: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Aug;5(4):319-27
references.pmid: 16866562
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006 Nov;33(11):1301-13
references.pmid: 16622710
references.citation: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Apr;30(4):603-6
references.pmid: 12536242
references.citation: PET Clin. 2007 Apr;2(2):235-49
references.pmid: 27157875