Simulation of a Quality Control Jaszczak Phantom with SIMIND Monte Carlo and Adding the Phantom as an Accessory to the Program

Document Type: Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Medical Physics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

2 Department of Medical Physics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Reza Center of Medical Education and Treatment, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Medical Radiation Physics Department, Clinical Sciences - Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Abstract

Introduction
Quality control is an important phenomenon in nuclear medicine imaging. A Jaszczak SPECT Phantom provides consistent performance information for any SPECT or PET system. This article describes the simulation of a Jaszczak phantom and creating an executable phantom file for comparing assessment of SPECT cameras using SIMIND Monte Carlo simulation program which is well-established for SPECT.
Materials and Methods
The simulation was based on a Deluxe model of Jaszczak Phantom with defined geometry. Quality control tests were provided together with initial imaging example and suggested use for the assessment of parameters such as spatial resolution, limits of lesion detection, and contrast comparing with a Siemens E.Cam SPECT system.
Results
The phantom simulation was verified by matching tomographic spatial resolution, image contrast, and also uniformity compared with the experiment SPECT of the phantom from filtered backprojection reconstructed images of the spheres and rods. The calculated contrasts of the rods were 0.774, 0.627, 0.575, 0.372, 0.191, and 0.132 for an experiment with the rods diameters of 31.8, 25.4, 19.1, 15.9, 12.7, and 9.5 mm, respectively. The calculated contrasts of simulated rods were 0.661, 0.527, 0.487, 0.400, 0.23, and 0.2 for cold rods and also 0.92, 0.91, 0.88, 0.81, 0.76, and 0.56 for hot rods. Reconstructed spatial tomographic resolution of both experiment and simulated SPECTs of the phantom obtained about 9.5 mm. An executable phantom file and an input phantom file were created for the SIMIND Monte Carlo program.
Conclusion
This phantom may be used for simulated SPECT systems and would be ideal for verification of the simulated systems with real ones by comparing the results of quality control and image evaluation. It is also envisaged that this phantom could be used with a range of radionuclide doses in simulation situations such as cold, hot, and background uptakes for the assessment of detection characteristics when a new similar clinical SPECT procedure is being simulated.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Ljungberg M, Strand SE. A Monte Carlo program for the simulation of scintillation camera characteristics. Comp Meth Progr Biomed. 1989;29(4):257-72.
  2. Ljungberg M. Simulation Techniques and Phantoms. Emission Tomography: The Fundamentals of PET and SPECT. In: Wernick M, Aarsvold J, editors. New York, USA: Academic Press Inc.; 2000.
  3. Zaidi H. Relevance of accurate Monte Carlo modeling in nuclear medical imaging. Med Phys. 1999;26(4):574-608.
  4. Siegel JA, Group AAoPiMST. Rotating Scintillation Camera SPECT Acceptance Testing and Quality Control: Report of AAPM SPECT Task Group: American Inst. of Physics; 1987.
  5. Hines H, Kayayan R, Colsher J, Hashimoto D, Schubert R, Fernando J, et al. National Electrical Manufacturers Association 2000 Recommendations for Implementing SPECT Instrumentation Quality Control. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(2):383-9.
  6. National  Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance Measurements of Scintillation Cameras. NEMA . Washington; 2001.p.1-45.
  7. Agency IAE. Quality Control of Nuclear Medicine Instruments 1991: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1991.
  8. IPEM 86: Quality Control of Gamma Camera Systems. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York; 2003.
  9. Bradshaw J, Burnham C, Correia J, Rogers WL, Clinthorne  NH. Application of Monte Carlo methods to the design of SPECT detector systems. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1985;32(1):753-7.
  10. Lupton LR, Keller NA. Performance study of single-slice positron emission tomography scanners by Monte Carlo techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1983;2(4):154- 68.
  11. Dewaraja YK, Ljungberg M, Koral KF. Characterization of Scatter and Penetration Using Monte Carlo Simulation in 131I Imaging. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(1):123-30.
  12. Ljungberg M. The SIMIND Monte Carlo program. In: Ljungberg M, Strand SE, King MA, editors. Monte Carlo calculation in nuclear medicine: Applications in diagnostic imaging. Bristol: IOP Publishing; 1998. p. 145-63. 
  13. Bahreyni Toossi MT, Pirayesh Islamian J, Momennezhad M, Ljungberg M, Naseri Sh. SIMIND Monte Carlo simulation of a single photon emission CT. J Med Phys. 2010; 35(1): 42-7.
  14. Groch MW, Erwin WD. Single-photon emission computed tomography in the year 2001: Instrumentation and quality control. J Nucl Med Technol. 2001;29(1):9-15.
  15. Flanged Jaszczak ECT Phantoms. Available from: http://www.spect.com/pub/Flanged_Jaszczak_Phantoms.pdf . Accessed. Aug 10, 2012.
  16. Holstensson M, Hindrof C, Ljungberg M, Partridge M, Flux GD. Optimization of energy-window setting for scatter correction in quantitative 111in imaging: Comparison of measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2007;22(1):136-42.
  17. Padhy AK, Agency IAE, Solanki KK. Nuclear medicine resources manual: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2006.
    1. Jarritt PH, Perkins AC, Woods SD. Audit of Nuclear Medicine Scientific and Technical Standards. Nucl Med Commun. 2004; 25(8):771-5.