Recovery coefficients as a test of system linearity of response in PET

Aim: New imaging protocols have created an increasing demand for quantitation in dedicated PET. Besides attenuation and scatter correction the recovery correction, accounting for the instrument's limited spatial resolution, has gained importance. For clinical practicability these corrections should work independent from the object, i.e. from the actual distribution of emitter and absorber. Aim of the study was to test this object independency, i.e. system linearity of response, by comparing recovery coefficients (RC) determined for different object geometries. In fact, this comparison may serve as a final test on system linearity of response, as measured on the quantitative accuracy by which the activity concentration in small lesions can be recovered. Method: For hot and cold spot imaging situations spatial distribution of activity is different. Therefore, scatter correction algorithm has to deal with different scatter distributions. If all factors disturbing system linearity, specifically scatter and attenuation, are corrected to a sufficient degree of accuracy, the system behaves linearly resulting in the theoretical relationship. CSRC = (1-HSRC). Thus, this equation, applied hot and cold spot measurements, will serve as a test on the effectiveness of the corrections and, hence, as a test of system linearity of response. Following IEC standard procedures (IEC 61675-1) measurements were done with and without interplane septa (2D/3D) on an ECAT EXACT 922 using a cylindrical phantom containing six spheres of different diameters (10 mm - 40 mm). All data were corrected for attenuation (transmission scan) and scatter (2D: deconvolution, 3D: scatter model), as implemented in the scanner's standard software. Recovery coefficients were determined for cold (CSRC) and hot (HSRC) lesions using both 2D and 3D acquisition mode. Results: CSRC directly measured versus CSRC calculated according to eq. (1) from HSRC resulted in an excellent agreement for both 2D and 3D data. Changing from 2D to 3D mode resulted in a threefold higher scatter fraction. Nevertheless, the recovery coefficients were identical (HSRC as well as CSRC), thus demonstrating the effective removal of the scatter component by the scatter model approach. Conclusion: The corrections as implemented in the scanners standard software result in recovery coefficients independent of the object under study as an important factor of linear system performance. Comparing RC determined for different objects of proper design qualifies as a final test on system linearity of response