Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Download Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics With Matlab A Problem Solving Approach Series In Medical Physics And Biomedical Engineering 1St Edition Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou Editor online ebook texxtbook full chapter pdf
Download Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics With Matlab A Problem Solving Approach Series In Medical Physics And Biomedical Engineering 1St Edition Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou Editor online ebook texxtbook full chapter pdf
MATLAB®: A Problem-Solving
Approach (Series in Medical Physics
and Biomedical Engineering) 1st
Edition Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
(Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/clinical-nuclear-medicine-physics-with-matlab-a-probl
em-solving-approach-series-in-medical-physics-and-biomedical-engineering-1st-editio
n-maria-lyra-georgosopoulou-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
https://ebookmeta.com/product/diagnostic-radiology-physics-with-
matlab-a-problem-solving-approach-1st-edition-johan-helmenkamp-
editor/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/practical-biomedical-signal-
analysis-using-matlab-series-in-medical-physics-and-biomedical-
engineering-2nd-edition-blinowska/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/optical-polarimetric-modalities-
for-biomedical-research-biological-and-medical-physics-
biomedical-engineering-nirmal-mazumder-editor/
Fortschritte der Physik Progress of Physics Band 29
Heft 8
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fortschritte-der-physik-progress-
of-physics-band-29-heft-8/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fortschritte-der-physik-progress-
of-physics-band-29-heft-4/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fortschritte-der-physik-progress-
of-physics-band-29-heft-11-12/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/electrical-impedance-tomography-
methods-history-and-applications-series-in-medical-physics-and-
biomedical-engineering-2nd-edition-andy-adler/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-problem-books-in-physics-pandey/
Clinical Nuclear Medicine
Physics with MATLAB®
Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering
Series Editors
Kwan-Hoong Ng, E. Russell Ritenour,
and Slavik Tabakov
A Problem-Solving Approach
Edited by
Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
MATLAB® is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. and is used with permission. The MathWorks does
not warrant the accuracy of the text or exercises in this book. This book’s use or discussion of MATLAB®
software or related products does not constitute endorsement or sponsorship by The MathWorks of a par-
ticular pedagogical approach or particular use of the MATLAB® software.
First edition published 2022
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
and by CRC Press
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou; individual chapters, the contributors
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
The right of Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of
the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors
and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and
apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright
material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or here-
after invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyright.com or con-
tact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400.
For works that are not available on CCC please contact mpkbookspermissions@tandf.co.uk
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Typeset in Times
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Contents
Foreword...................................................................................................................vii
Contributors...............................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
v
vi Contents
vii
viii Foreword
REFERENCES
1. Dvorak P. (2018) Clinical Radiotherapy Physics with MATLAB: A Problem-Solving
Approach, CRC Press.
2. Helmenkamp J., Bujila R., & Poludniowski G. (2020) Diagnostic Radiology Physics
with MATLAB: A Problem-Solving Approach, CRC Press.
3. Caruana, C. J., Christofides, S., & Hartmann, G. H. (2014). European Federation of
Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) policy statement 12.1: recommendations
on medical physics education and training in Europe 2014, Physica Medica – European
Journal of Medical Physics, 30 (6), 598.
4. Guibelalde E., Christofides S., Caruana C. J., Evans S., & van der Putten W. (Eds.)
(2015). European Guidelines on the Medical Physics Expert (Radiation Protection
Series 174). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg: European
Commission.
5. Lyra M., Ploussi A., & Georgantzoglou A. (2011). MATLAB as a tool in nuclear medi-
cine image processing, In: Ionescu C. (Ed.) MATLAB – A Ubiquitous Tool for the
Practical Engineer InTech, DOI: 10.5772/19999.
6. Ferris M.C., Lim J., & Shepard D.M. (2005). Optimization tools for radiation treat-
ment planning in MATLAB, In: Brandeau M.L., Sainfort F., Pierskalla W.P. (Eds)
Operations Research and Health Care. International Series in Operations Research &
Management Science, vol 70. Boston, MA: Springer.
7. Nowik P., Bujila R., Poludniowski G., & Fransson A. (2015). Quality control of CT
systems by automated monitoring of key performance indicators: a two-year study, J
Appl Clin Med Phys. 16 (4): 254–265.
8. Donini B., Rivetti S., Lanconelli N., & Bertolini M. (2014) Free software for perform-
ing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography, Med Phys,
41 (5): 051903.
Contributors
Maria Argyrou Nefeli Lagopati
Department of Nuclear Medicine National Technical University of Athens
Athens Medical Center School of Chemical Engineering
Athens, Greece Laboratory of General Chemistry
National and Kapodistrian University of
Christos Chatzigiannis Athens
Imaging Centre and
Regional Medical Physics Service Department of Medicine
Royal Victoria Hospital School of Health Sciences
Belfast, UK Molecular Carcinogenesis Group
Athens, Greece
Antonios Georgantzoglou
Department of Physiology, Development Marios Sotiropoulos
and Neuroscience Unité Signalisation radiobiologie et
University of Cambridge cancer
Cambridge, UK Institut Curie/CNRS/Inserm/Université
Paris-Saclay
Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou Orsay, France
1st Department of Radiology
Radiation Physics Unit Stella Synefia
School of Medicine Metropolitan College
National and Kapodistrian University of Maroussi, Greece
Athens
Athens, Greece Elena Ttofi
Limassol, Cyprus
ix
1 Introduction
Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
CONTENTS
1.1 Introduction – Quality in Nuclear Medicine.....................................................2
1.2 Quality in Nuclear Medicine Focuses on Three Main Tasks............................3
1.2.1 Quality Management (QM)................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Quality Assurance (QA)........................................................................ 4
1.2.2.1 Why Do We Need a Quality Assurance (QA) Program
in Nuclear Medicine?.............................................................. 4
1.2.2.2 Education/Clinical Medical Physicists
in Nuclear Medicine................................................................5
1.2.2.3 Radioisotopes – Radiopharmaceutical Quality...................... 5
1.2.3 Quality Control (QC)............................................................................. 6
1.2.3.1 Quality Control of Radiopharmaceuticals..............................9
1.2.3.2 Quality Control/System Performance Degradation................ 9
1.2.3.3 Abnormal Distribution of the Radiopharmaceutical............ 12
1.2.4 Imaging Phantoms Are Quality Control Tools in
Nuclear Medicine................................................................................. 13
1.2.5 Hybrid Systems Quality Assurance (QA) – Fusion............................. 15
1.2.5.1 Quality of Performance and Advantages Utilizing
SPECT/CT............................................................................ 16
1.2.5.2 SPECT/CT Fusion................................................................. 16
1.2.5.3 Hybrid PET/CT..................................................................... 18
1.2.5.4 New Generation of PET/CT.................................................. 19
1.2.5.5 Comparison of Quantitative PET/CT and SPECT/CT..........20
1.2.5.6 From PET/CT to PET/MRI................................................... 21
1.2.5.7 Hybrid SPECT/MRI............................................................. 23
1.3 Quality Assurance (QA) of Imaging Systems Based
on International Standards...............................................................................26
1.4 The Quality of Scientific and Clinical Output................................................. 30
1.4.1 Data Quality........................................................................................ 30
1.4.2 Data Resolution – Noise Data.............................................................. 31
1.4.3 Attenuation Correction........................................................................ 33
1.5 Accuracy and Precision Improvement in Quantification
of Imaging Data...............................................................................................34
1.5.1 Accuracy and Precision in Nuclear Medicine..................................... 36
1.6 The Need for Mathematical Methods in Nuclear
Medicine Image Evaluation............................................................................. 37
1.6.1 MIRD Schema – MIRDOSE – OLINDA/EXM – RADAR
Software............................................................................................... 41
1
2 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
1. High-performance equipment
2. Staff Education (Clinical Medical Physicists)
3. Image acquisition and processing reliable software
4. Radioisotopes – Radiopharmaceutical Quality
Though much has been done to improve the stability of Nuclear Medicine systems
performance, their components will drift from the initial specifications, causing a
gradual deterioration in performance over a period of time (e.g., fluctuations in the
electrical power supply and environmental conditions may cause changes in system
performance). Quality Control (QC) of imaging system and radiopharmaceuticals is
a necessity for reliable results in Nuclear Medicine.
For best image quality in Nuclear Medicine examination performance, Quality
Control (QC) of the imaging system is a necessity. Quality Control (QC) of the imag-
ing system requires special choice of:
Acceptance testing – The first Quality Control (QC) procedure has as scope to test
newly installed systems with proper phantoms to provide sufficient data for evalua-
tion of a new system’s specification and obtain relevant results. These results should
be used as reference data for annual survey of the system. The annual survey of the
system performance will be a part of an imaging Quality Assurance (QA) program.
The following examples present a few images obtained by the Quality Control
(QC) approach:
Data collection matrix size depends on the number and size of the contained pixels.
A pixel represents the smallest sampled 2D element in an image. It has dimensions
given along two axes in millimeters, dictating in-plane spatial resolution.
Digital images are characterized by matrix size and pixel depth. Matrix size
refers to the number of discrete picture elements (pixels) in the matrix. This affects
the degree of spatial detail that can be presented. Larger matrices provide more
detail. Matrix sizes used in Nuclear Medicine images typically range from 64 × 64
to 512 × 512 pixels. The larger the matrix size, the smaller the pixels and the more
detail that is visible in the image (Figure 1.5) (Radiology Key, 2016).
FIGURE 1.3 Choice of termination of image acquisition (time or counts) is crucial for the
optimum statistics in improvement of image quality.
8 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
A smaller pixel size can display more image detail; though there is no further
improvement at a certain point because of resolution limitations of the imaging device.
Most Nuclear Medicine images consist of multidimensional datasets of counts
(pixels or counts/voxel). A voxel represents a value on a regular grid in three-
dimensional space; in the word voxel, [vo] represents volume and [el] represents
element; similar formation with [el] for element includes the word pixel.
The dataset directly reflects regional concentration of radioactivity. Thus, Nuclear
Medicine is a quantitative technique for the detection of molecular interaction of a radio-
pharmaceutical with the endogenous target. However, its quantitative power for clinical
research can only become productive when there is strict standardization of imaging
protocols. Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) procedures of the imaging
system must be in use so that optimal quantitative images and data are obtained.
FIGURE 1.5 Matrix size. (Top) Small matrix registers the three events as one. (Bottom) In
a larger matrix the three events are recorded clearly.
Introduction 9
• Radioisotope concentration
• Radioisotope purity
• Radiochemical purity
• Specific concentration
• Sterility
FIGURE 1.6 Collimator destruction during transportation. (a) Distorted cells made of foils.
(b) Collimator cells in proper condition. (c) flood source image completed by destructed
collimator a. Inhomogeneities on the image caused by destructed collimator cells
FIGURE 1.7 Uniformity checks of a planar γ-camera by Co57 Flood Source. Left: Peripheral
photomultiplier (PMT) defect. Middle: Photomultipliers PMTs voltage deficiency; see rings
of low intensity. Right: Non-uniformed image because of wrong energy window selection
(20% in Tc-99m photopeak [140 keV] instead of energy window at Co57 photopeak [122 keV]
as well as a peripheral photomultiplier (PMT) defect.
FIGURE 1.8 Left: A cold circular region completing a scintigraphy image before the daily
Quality Control (QC). Right: A uniformity control test shows that a group of photomultipliers
(PMTs) is out of order. Consequence is the cold region in the patient’s scintigraphy image.
Introduction 11
FIGURE 1.9A The patient was extremely claustrophobic and an acquisition by I-123-
Ioflupane (DATSCAN) for Striatum study was done with γ-camera heads at full radius. No
clear distinction of the imaged striatum. As a result, the obtained tomographic slices were
nondiagnostic – very bad quality images. (Images supplied courtesy of GE Healthcare.)
FIGURE 1.9B Properly acquired striatum images by DATSCAN. Left: Diagnosed as nor-
mal. Right: Characterized as abnormal.
12 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
FIGURE 1.10 (a) Transaxial image with no truncation. All 64 rows of the matrix were used
for the data. (b) Transaxial slice from severe truncation, which has been simulated by using
a row of ±10 pixels from the axis of rotation. (IAEA Quality Control Atlas for Scintillation
camera Systems, 2003.)
FIGURE 1.12 (a) National Electrical Manufactures Association (NEMA) sensitivity PET
phantom. Six concentric aluminum tubes used to detect camera sensitivity in PET. (b)
NEMA PET scatter fraction phantom. Made of four sections for ease of carrying/storage.
(c) Elliptical PET and SPECT Phantom™ Model ECT/ELP/P Deluxe ECT phantom with
elliptical body shape: Use with high spatial resolution SPECT and PET systems for evalu-
ation of data acquisition using noncircular orbit. (Data Spectrum Corporation, http://www.
spect.com/products.html.)
FIGURE 1.13 An imaging phantom for determining computed tomography (CT) perfor-
mance in SPECT/CT and PET/CT Nuclear Medicine imaging systems, AAPM Report No.
1, 1977, CT Performance Phantom. (CIRS Model 610 AAPM CT Performance Phantom,
Universal Medical, https://www.universalmedicalinc.com/aapm-ct-performance-phantom.
html.)
Introduction 15
FIGURE 1.14 NEMA IEC PET Body Phantom Set™, The body phantom with a lung insert
and an insert of six spheres with various sizes.
Tests. The tests include recommendations for both acceptance testing and an annual
physics survey.
• The technical staff (doctors and Medical Physicists as well) of the Nuclear
Medicine department should be well trained to perform and monitor both
components of the study according to a well-defined protocol.
• Workstations that allow integrated viewing of the functional and anatomic
data should be used for the interpretation of the SPECT/CT images.
• The images must be reviewed for technical and diagnostic quality before
the patient leaves the department.
Precise image registration in the hybrid imaging study by SPECT/CT makes the
interpretation of high signal-to-background (S/B) functional images – combined
with better anatomic information – more credible.
Anatomical accuracy of image registration in SPECT/CT hybrid imaging
is a high advantage of the system. Increased specificity is achieved through a
more precise localization by CT and characterization of functional findings by
SPECT.
The use of the CT component of a SPECT/CT patient examination, for correct-
ing the SPECT data for attenuation and scatter is crucial, for proper estimation
of radioactivity concentration in specific organs or tissues on a volumetric basis
(IAEA, 2008).
FIGURE 1.15 (a) Fused SPECT/CT image of a lumbar vertebra in a patient with breast
cancer is shown. Increased uptake of Tc-99m-MDP into the arthrosis of the facet joint is
observed. (b) A similar image in another breast cancer patient is depicted. Although the
SPECT appearance of the lesion is quite similar to that in patient A, the CT overlay proves
it to be a small osteolysis Fused images also indicate that SPECT/CT is a clinically relevant
component of the diagnostic process in patients with non-oncological disease referred for
bone scintigraphy. (Extracted from IAEA, TECDOC 1597, 2008.)
FIGURE 1.16 A 74-year-old patient after recent trauma showing enhanced uptake of
Tc-99m-MDP in a vertebral body of the lower thoracic spine. (a) 3D-volume rendering of
the SPECT/CT fusion shows that a lesion is in the 12th vertebral body. The inspection of the
fused tomogram proves it to be a fracture; moreover, the examination discloses it to be unsta-
ble since (b) the posterior cortical is involved, thus motivating immediate surgery. (Extracted
from IAEA, TECDOC 1597, 2008.)
18 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
FIGURE 1.17 A 6-year-old child with newly diagnosed neuroblastoma was referred for
staging. I-123-mIBG SPECT/CT localizes abnormal tracer uptake to the primary lesion in a
large mass in the right adrenal. (Courtesy of Israel O. et al., 2019.)
1.2.5.3.2 PET/CT Image Quality by NEMA IEC PET Body Phantom Set™
The evaluation of PET system requires standard and reliable methods to allow the com-
parison of different PET systems using accepted measurement standards for the system.
NEMA provides guidelines to measure the performance of the PET component of a
PET/CT system by the body phantom with a lung insert and an insert of six spheres with
various sizes (Figure 1.14); NEMA organization has published a series of procedures
to evaluate the physical performance of PET systems. This NEMA standard is revised
periodically, and the latest update of this publication resulted in the NEMA NU2-2018.
The NEMA NU2-2012 quality control tests have been performed to evaluate this
system on site before clinical use (Jha A. K. et al., 2019). Performance measurements
of the PET component were made using the NEMA NU2-2012 procedures for spatial
Introduction 19
FIGURE 1.18 PET/CT image quality calibrations by NEMA body phantom. Schematically,
in this figure, we see the cold, hot spheres and background Region of Interests (ROIs).
resolution, scatter fraction, sensitivity, count rate loss and random coincidence esti-
mation, Noise Equivalent Count Rate (NECR), and image quality.
Image quality test for contrast recovery, background variability met all
specifications. Overall PET performance of whole-body system was satisfac-
tory and all the performance specifications required by NEMA NU2-2012
were satisfied.
In Positron emission tomography body phantom, the middle pipe represents
lungs, six fillable spheres with inner diameters of 10, 13, 17, 2, 28, and 37 mm.
Background activity concentration of the body phantom (Figure 1.18), hot lesions,
and cold lesions should be filled accordingly.
The analysis can be made on transverse sections (Demir M. et al., 2018) in which a
circular region of interest (ROI) is drawn as close as possible to the dense inner diam-
eter of every cold and hot sphere. For background, ROIs of the same size of the hot
and cold sphere ROIs, drawn around and are outlined near the edge of the phantom.
FIGURE 1.19 Transversal images of the phantom obtained from (a) a SiPM-based PET-CT
and (b) a PET/CT scanner with a conventional Photon Multipliers (PMs) detector, with a
sphere-to-background activity ratio of 4:1. Image acquisitions and reconstructions were per-
formed as in the patient study. (Courtesy by Oddstig J. et al., 2019.)
• SiPMs have been employed to both PET/CT and PET/MRI systems due
to their high timing resolution, low operation voltage, and their features
of compactness and immunity for coexistence with magnetic fields.
However, efforts are still needed to improve the performance of SiPMs
for lower noise, higher photo-detection efficiency (PDE), and even better
timing resolution.
It is predicted that digital silicon photomultipliers (dSiPMs) might over-
take analog SiPMs in future PET systems.
• Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) detectors show excellent position and
energy resolution, but their PET applications are limited due to their poor
timing resolution performance.
A comparison of measurements performed in analog PET/CT equipped
with conventional PMTs with the signal recovery obtained from digital
PET systems, in hot sphere inserts of the NEMA/IEC NU2 phantom high-
lighted the improved signal-to-noise ratios achievable with the new digital
PET devices compared to conventional ones (Gnesin S. et al., 2020).
FIGURE 1.20 Comparison of quantitative PET/CT (F-18) and SPECT/CT (Tc-99m) images
in IEC body phantom containing six fillable spheres. T:B indicates actual target to back-
ground ratio for each experiment between concentration of radioactivity in spheres and in
general compartment of phantom. Quantitative results are obtained for single slice through
phantom corresponding to central section through largest sphere. (Extracted from Bailey
D. L. et al., 2013.)
FIGURE 1.21 Image fusion following software registration. Software registered PET/MRI
image of a grade II astrocytoma. (Extracted from Slomka P. J. and Baum R. P., 2009.)
regard to anatomical detail, poorer. These limitations are greatly reduced in hard-
ware-based registration that should therefore offer a higher anatomical accuracy of
image fusion.
further innovation may be needed when the Field of View (FOV) is enlarged to cover
the whole body (Hutton B. F. et al., 2018).
The dual radionuclide capability has a particular appeal. The development of
appropriate technology remains challenging, but ultimately may lead to more gen-
eral superior SPECT performance; although the clinical need for a simultaneous
SPECT/MRI acquisition remains to be demonstrated.
FIGURE 1.22 Results of the sensitivity analysis per tissue type; the black bars correspond
to SPECT and the white bars to PET. The asterisks denote statistically significant differ-
ences. The error bars represent the standard deviation (SD) of the sample. (From Marshall
H. R. et al., 2011.)
26 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
IAEA cooperates with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American
Health Organization (PAHO) among others, in the area of radiation medicine and of
radiological safety, security, and emergencies. The arrangement covers collaboration in
quality and safety in radiation medicine (radiotherapy, diagnostic radiology, and Nuclear
Medicine); radiological safety, security, and emergencies; information sharing; and med-
ical physics. Joint activities focus particularly on Latin America and the Caribbean.
In IAEA Human Health series, guidelines relative to Nuclear Medicine Quality
Assurance of instrumentation are deposited as:
i. Guidelines concerning the Quality Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems
in IAEA (2009) Human Health Series, No. 1; and
ii. PET/CT Atlas on Quality Control and Image Artefacts in IAEA (2014)
Human Health Series No. 27.
As well as,
iii. Quality Assurance for SPECT Systems, IAEA (2009) Human Health Series
No. 6; and
iv. SPECT/CT Atlas of Quality Control and Image Artefacts, IAEA (2019)
Human Health Series No. 36, are addressed.
• EANM networks with other associations, including EFOMP, IAEA,
SNM, World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology (WFNMB;
Introduction 27
NCRP, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, has pre-
pared Report No. 176 for “Radiation safety aspects of nanotechnology” in 2017.
Introduction 29
This report is intended primarily for operational health physicists, radiation safety
officers, and internal dosimetrists responsible to establish and use radiation safety
programs involving radioactive nanomaterials. It describes the current knowledge
relating to nanotechnology that is relevant to radiation safety programs.
It considers operational health physics practices that may be modified when nano-
technology is involved and includes specific guidance for conducting internal dosim-
etry programs when nanomaterials are being handled.
AAPM, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Medical Physicists are
concerned with three areas of activity: Clinical Service and Consultation, Research and
Development, and Teaching. On the average, their time is distributed equally among
these three areas as it is stated in the “Definition of a Qualified Medical Physicist
Standard”, 2019, https://www.aapm.org/medical_physicist/fields.asp#nuclear.
All guidelines are referred to “procedures of good quality without needless details”,
that is “good practice through minimum requirements” and their target has to be:
1.4.1 Data Quality
Data are of high quality if they correctly represent the real world to which they refer.
Figure 1.23 refers to two examples of how to measure data or reflect data distribution.
Imaging system assessment depends on the task for which the system is intended,
so there is:
• A need to understand not only the physics of the equipment but also the way
that acquisition data affects results.
Introduction 31
FIGURE 1.23 (a) Accurate measurements in a dose calibrator or (b) an homogeneous rep-
resentation of a uniform object (homogeneous flood source of Co-57).
There is no point in optimizing the resolution of the camera if the user does not
acquire clinical data in such a way as to maximize resolution (e.g., distance effects).
The ICRU Report No. 54, Medical Imaging, The Assessment of Image Quality,
1996, proposes a framework, based on statistical decision theory, within which
imaging system performance may be measured, optimized, and compared. It is pro-
posed that the analysis based on the acquired data could provide an assessment of
the potential performance of the imaging system and may link the purely objective
measures of device performance to the subjective assessment of image quality. The
analysis of the acquired data has the advantage of allowing one to investigate the
effect on performance by altering various parameters of the imaging system.
FIGURE 1.24 Image noise impression (standard deviation of noise = square-root of average
pixel count N). (Courtesy of Moore S. C., 1997.)
where standard deviation σ is the square-root of the variance. N is the average pixel
count.
Variance is the expectation of the squared deviation of a random variable from
its mean. Informally, it measures how far a set of (random) numbers are spread out
from their average value. The variance is the square σ2 of the standard deviation, σ.
The noise variance is the mean number of counts expected on a certain part of the
image. It is desirable to obtain as many counts as possible to reduce the percentage
of image noise. Main limitations are:
Nuclear Medicine imaging systems distort and suppress real data more than do with
noise. The deformation that the detector introduces in the “image” of an “object” is
described by the Point Spread Function (PSF) and results into blurring. Blurring is
caused by the relative suppression of the high-frequency components of the image in
the frequency domain. To find the shape of an “object” must deconvolute the “blur-
ring image” from the “image” of the object.
If Resolution could be better, Noise should be less than a problem. The effect of
the resolution loss depends on the processing procedure that is performed.
Nuclear Medicine images illustrate the problem of image processing due to their
relatively poor resolution and noise appearance. For example, enhancing the contri-
bution from the high-frequency components of the image selectively, the contribu-
tion of noise into the image is enhanced more.
By image processing we try to correct image parameters as exposure, contrast,
or low-count statistics, as well as we may also correct artefacts. However, Nuclear
Medicine images, often, suffer from low contrast; that is further degraded by the
noise introduced in the process of imaging (Lyra M. and Ploussi A., 2011). The
image optimization tools are:
1.4.3 Attenuation Correction
The attenuation correction is dependent on a correct pixel size and attenuation fac-
tor, μ.
A cylindrical phantom, 20 cm in diameter, containing a homogeneous solution of
Technetium-99m (Tc-99m) can be used to acquire a high-count dataset. Attenuation
correction was applied using different linear attenuation coefficients. A profile
was drawn across one of the transverse slices (IAEA, Quality Control Atlas for
Scintillation camera Systems, 2003).
Figure 1.25 shows that, for the attenuation correction using μ = 0.11 cm−1, the pro-
file through the slice is essentially flat, apart from statistical fluctuations indicating
that the attenuation correction software is correct.
The attenuation correction determined by a homogeneous water-filled phantom is
not correct when applied to a nonhomogeneous patient. So, attenuation correction in
clinical imaging ought to be used carefully.
IAEA encourages and assists research development and practical use of atomic
energy and its applications for peaceful purposes throughout the world. It brings
together research institutions to collaborate on research projects of common interest,
so-called Coordinated Research Projects (CRPs). An IAEA Co-ordinated Project,
“Development and Validation of an Internet-based clinical and technical study
communication system for Nuclear Medicine” https://www.iaea.org/projects/crp/
e11013, was referred to software for imaging data communicating through the inter-
net. The participating countries included: Argentina, Austria, China, Cuba, Greece,
India, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United
States of America. A part of it (multimedia training package on planar γ-camera
and QC practice) is shown at http://www.medimaging.gr/cd/pages/intro.html.
34 Clinical Nuclear Medicine Physics with MATLAB®
FIGURE 1.25 Profiles to check the accuracy of attenuation correction. (a) No attenua-
tion correction. (b) Attenuation correction with μ = 0.11 cm−2. (Extracted of IAEA, Quality
Control Atlas for Scintillation Camera Systems, 2003.)