Quantitative validation of Monte Carlo SPECT simulation: application to a Mediso AnyScan GATE simulation.
GATE
Monte Carlo
Quantification
SPECT
Validation
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Sep 2023
30 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
09
06
2023
accepted:
15
09
2023
medline:
1
10
2023
pubmed:
1
10
2023
entrez:
30
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Monte 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. An 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 [Formula: see text]Tc for comparison to simulation. The procedure was then repeated with [Formula: see text]Lu to determine how the validation extended to another isotope and set of collimators. The 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 [Formula: see text]Tc and [Formula: see text]Lu data. Average simulated and experimental sensitivity ratios of ([Formula: see text]) were seen for emission and scatter windows of [Formula: see text]Tc, and ([Formula: see text]) and ([Formula: see text]) for the 113 and 208 keV emissions of [Formula: see text]Lu, respectively. MC 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Monte 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.
METHODS
METHODS
An 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 [Formula: see text]Tc for comparison to simulation. The procedure was then repeated with [Formula: see text]Lu to determine how the validation extended to another isotope and set of collimators.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 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 [Formula: see text]Tc and [Formula: see text]Lu data. Average simulated and experimental sensitivity ratios of ([Formula: see text]) were seen for emission and scatter windows of [Formula: see text]Tc, and ([Formula: see text]) and ([Formula: see text]) for the 113 and 208 keV emissions of [Formula: see text]Lu, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MC 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37777689
doi: 10.1186/s40658-023-00581-4
pii: 10.1186/s40658-023-00581-4
pmc: PMC10542438
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
60Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jul 21;61(14):5107-27
pubmed: 27351914
Ann Nucl Med. 2012 Jan;26(1):92-8
pubmed: 22033783
Phys Med Biol. 2015 May 7;60(9):N167-76
pubmed: 25880881
Heliyon. 2021 Feb 10;7(2):e06097
pubmed: 33659726
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Jul 7;50(13):3113-25
pubmed: 15972984
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Mar 02;63(5):055011
pubmed: 29185992
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Oct 7;49(19):4543-61
pubmed: 15552416
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1452-63
pubmed: 18491540
Phys Med. 2021 May;85:24-31
pubmed: 33957577
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Sep 08;67(18):
pubmed: 36001985
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jan 7;56(1):87-104
pubmed: 21119230
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Mar 21;55(6):1735-51
pubmed: 20197600
Phys Med. 2018 Oct;54:189-199
pubmed: 30017561
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991;10(3):408-12
pubmed: 18222843
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;57(1):151-62
pubmed: 26471692
EJNMMI Phys. 2021 Jul 23;8(1):55
pubmed: 34297218
Phys Med. 2022 Apr;96:101-113
pubmed: 35276403
Phys Med Biol. 2021 May 14;66(10):
pubmed: 33770774
Phys Med Biol. 1984 Oct;29(10):1217-30
pubmed: 6333690