Validation of Simulation Codes for Nuclear Imaging Using Digital Phantoms

DOI Web Site Web Site PubMed 4 References
  • Okuda Koichi
    Department of Physics, Kanazawa Medical University
  • Nosaka Hiroki
    Clinical Imaging Center for Healthcare, Nippon Medical  School
  • Ito Toshimune
    Department of Radiology, Saiseikai Yokohamashi Tobu Hospital
  • Matsutomo Norikazu
    Department of Medical Radiological Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kyorin University
  • Ichikawa Hajime
    Department of Radiology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital
  • Shirakawa Seiji
    Faculty of Radiological Technology, School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University
  • Yamaki Noriyasu
    IT Solutions Department, Nihon Medi-Physics Co., Ltd.
  • Kikuchi Akihiro
    Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University of Science
  • Tsushima Hiroyuki
    Department of Radiological Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences
  • Ljungberg Michael
    Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • ディジタルファントムを用いた核医学イメージングにおけるシミュレーションコードの妥当性
  • ディジタルファントム オ モチイタ カク イガク イメージング ニ オケル シミュレーションコード ノ ダトウセイ

Search this article

Abstract

<p>Validation study of simulation codes was performed based on the measurement of a sphere phantom and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) body phantoms. SIMIND and Prominence Processor were used for the simulation. Both source and density maps were generated using the characteristics of 99mTc energy. A full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the sphere phantom was measured and simulated. Simulated recovery coefficient and the background count coefficient of variation were also compared with the measured values in the body phantom study. When the two simulation codes were compared with actual measurements, maximum relative errors of FWHM values were 3.6% for Prominence Processor and -10.0% for SIMIND. The maximum relative errors of relative recovery coefficients exhibited 11.8% for Prominence Processor and -2.0% for SIMIND in the body phantom study. The coefficients of variation of the SPECT count in the background were significantly different among the measurement and two simulation codes. The simulated FWHM values and recovery coefficients paralleled measured results. However, the noise characteristic differed among actual measurements and two simulation codes in the background count statistics.</p>

Journal

References(4)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top