Attenuation Correction for Small Animal PET Images: A Comparison of Two Methods

<table class="table-group" id="tab3"><tr><td><table class="table"><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="3"><hr/></td></tr><tr class="thead"><td align="left"> </td><td align="center">Roi counts (cps)</td><td align="center">RV (%)</td></tr><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="3"><hr/></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Original PET image</td><td align="center">527.82</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CT-AC image</td><td align="center">716.94</td><td align="center">26.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SE-AC image</td><td align="center">726.13</td><td align="center">27.7%</td></tr><tr class="table-tr"><td colspan="3"><hr class="tbody-hr"/></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

ROI counts measured in an ROI inside the tumour of a mouse obtained using <sup>18</sup>F-FDG images (the uncorrected and the two AC images) and recovery value (see (<a href="https://static.hindawi.com/articles/cmmm/volume-2013/103476/figures/#EEq4">4</a>)) calculated with the two AC methods.

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

tab3

Table 3

Table 3: Attenuation Correction for Small Animal PET Images: A Comparison of Two Methods 