Quantitative validation of Monte Carlo SPECT simulation: application to a Mediso AnyScan GATE simulation

EJNMMI Physics

Original Research

Emlyn Price¹  Ben Pietras¹  David M. Cullen¹  Sophia Pells²  Andrew P. Robinson³  George Needham⁴  Warda Heetun⁵  Kelley M. Ferreira⁵  Ana M. Denis-Bacelar⁵  Andrew Fenwick⁵  Daniel Deidda⁵  James Scuffham⁶  Peter Julyan⁷  Jill Tipping⁷  David Hamilton⁷ 

[1] Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK;Department of Radiology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA;Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK;The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK;Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK;National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK;National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK;Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK;The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK;

关键词: Monte Carlo;    GATE;    Validation;    SPECT;    Quantification;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40658-023-00581-4

 received in 2023-06-09, accepted in 2023-09-15,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundMonte Carlo (MC) simulations are used in nuclear medicine imaging as they provide unparalleled insight into processes that are not directly experimentally measurable, such as scatter and attenuation in an acquisition. Whilst MC is often used to provide a ‘ground-truth’, this is only the case if the simulation is fully validated against experimental data. This work presents a quantitative validation for a MC simulation of a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) system.MethodsAn MC simulation model of the Mediso AnyScan SCP SPECT system installed at the UK National Physical Laboratory was developed in the GATE (Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission) toolkit. Components of the detector head and two collimator configurations were modelled according to technical specifications and physical measurements. Experimental detection efficiency measurements were collected for a range of energies, permitting an energy-dependent intrinsic camera efficiency correction function to be determined and applied to the simulation on an event-by-event basis. Experimental data were collected in a range of geometries with 99m\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{99\text {m}}$$\end{document}Tc for comparison to simulation. The procedure was then repeated with 177\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{177}$$\end{document}Lu to determine how the validation extended to another isotope and set of collimators.ResultsThe simulation’s spatial resolution, sensitivity, energy spectra and the projection images were compared with experimental measurements. The simulation and experimental uncertainties were determined and propagated to all calculations, permitting the quantitative agreement between simulated and experimental SPECT acquisitions to be determined. Statistical agreement was seen in sinograms and projection images of both 99m\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{99\text {m}}$$\end{document}Tc and 177\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{177}$$\end{document}Lu data. Average simulated and experimental sensitivity ratios of (0.991±0.011\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$0.991 \pm 0.011$$\end{document}) were seen for emission and scatter windows of 99m\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{99\text {m}}$$\end{document}Tc, and (0.897±0.014\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$0.897 \pm 0.014$$\end{document}) and (0.839±0.014\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$0.839 \pm 0.014$$\end{document}) for the 113 and 208 keV emissions of 177\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$^{177}$$\end{document}Lu, respectively.ConclusionsMC simulations will always be an approximation of a physical system and the level of agreement should be assessed. A validation method is presented to quantify the level of agreement between a simulation model and a physical SPECT system.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 8

Fig. 2

Fig. 5

Fig. 4

12936_2016_1411_Article_IEq110.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

12888_2023_5283_Article_IEq2.gif

12888_2023_5283_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq54.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

12936_2015_1050_Article_IEq030.gif

Fig. 2

12936_2017_2118_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq56.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 5

Fig. 14

Fig. 11

12936_2017_1882_Article_IEq9.gif

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

12951_2017_283_Article_IEq3.gif

Fig. 13

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq54.gif

Fig. 5

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq53.gif

Fig. 2

12888_2023_5292_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq16.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq15.gif

Fig. 6

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq13.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq12.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 9

Fig. 4

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq52.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq51.gif

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

Fig. 10

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Scheme 1

12951_2016_223_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq50.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq49.gif

12936_2017_1904_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

42004_2023_1031_Figa_HTML.png

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq9.gif

42004_2023_1031_Article_IEq16.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq8.gif

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq48.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 10

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 8

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq7.gif

Fig. 1

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq6.gif

40538_2023_473_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq78.gif

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

12936_2015_836_Article_IEq25.gif

Fig. 4

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq5.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 1: The conceptual framework for adherence to treatment guidelines in private drug outlets in Kisumu, Kenya

Fig. 4

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq76.gif

Fig. 2

Scheme. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

12951_2017_303_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq74.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 8

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 6

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq72.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

12947_2017_100_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 10

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

12888_2023_5206_Article_IEq3.gif

12888_2023_5206_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 14

Fig. 2

Fig. 1