| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Basic Science Investigations |
Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
A whole-body PET scanner, without interplane septa, has been designed to achieve high performance in clinical applications. The C-PET scanner, an advancement of the PENN PET scanners, is unique in the use of 6 curved NaI(Tl) detectors (2.54 cm thick). The scanner has a ring diameter of 90 cm, a patient port diameter of 56 cm, and an axial field of view of 25.6 cm. A 137Cs point source is used for transmission scans. Methods: Following the protocols of the International Electrotechnical Commission ([IEC] 61675-1) and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association ([NEMA] NU-2-1994 and an updated version, NU2-2001), point and line sources, as well as uniform cylinders, were used to determine the performance characteristics of the C-PET scanner. An image-quality phantom and patient data were used to evaluate image quality under clinical scanning conditions. Data were rebinned with Fourier rebinning into 2-dimensional (slice-oriented) datasets and reconstructed with an iterative reconstruction algorithm. Results: The spatial resolution for a point source in the transaxial direction was 4.6 mm (full width at half maximum) at the center, and the axial resolution was 5.7 mm. For the NU2-1994 analysis, the sensitivity was 12.7 cps/Bq/mL (444 kcps/µCi/mL), the scatter fraction was 25%, and the peak noise equivalent count rate (NEC) for a uniform cylinder (diameter = 20 cm, length = 19 cm) was 49 kcps at an activity concentration of 11.2 kBq/mL. For the IEC protocol, the peak NEC was 41 kcps at 12.3 kBq/mL, and for the NU2-2001 protocol, the peak NEC was 14 kcps at 3.8 kBq/mL. The NU2-2001 NEC value differed significantly because of differences in the data analysis and the use of a 70-cm-long phantom. Conclusion: Compared with previous PENN PET scanners, the C-PET, with its curved detectors and improvements in pulse shaping, integration dead time, and triggering, has an improved count-rate capability and spatial resolution. With the refinements in the singles transmission technique and iterative reconstruction, image quality is improved and scan time is shortened. With single-event transmission scans interleaved between sequential emission scans, a whole-body study can be completed in <1 h. Overall, C-PET is a cost-effective PET scanner that performs well in a broad variety of clinical applications.
Key Words: PET • performance measurements • C-PET • National Electrical Manufacturers Association • International Electrotechnical Commission • NaI PET
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  O. Couturier, G. Jerusalem, J.-M. N'Guyen, and R. Hustinx Sequential Positron Emission Tomography Using [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose for Monitoring Response to Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 12(21): 6437 - 6443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Surti and J. S. Karp Imaging Characteristics of a 3-Dimensional GSO Whole-Body PET Camera J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2004; 45(6): 1040 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Paquet, A. Albert, J. Foidart, and R. Hustinx Within-Patient Variability of 18F-FDG: Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Tissues J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2004; 45(5): 784 - 788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. M. Rohren, T. G. Turkington, and R. E. Coleman Clinical Applications of PET in Oncology Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 305 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Tarantola, F. Zito, and P. Gerundini PET Instrumentation and Reconstruction Algorithms in Whole-Body Applications J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2003; 44(5): 756 - 769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hustinx, C. Lemaire, G. Jerusalem, P. Moreau, D. Cataldo, B. Duysinx, J. Aerts, M.-F. Fassotte, J. Foidart, and A. Luxen Whole-Body Tumor Imaging Using PET and 2-18F-Fluoro-L-Tyrosine: Preliminary Evaluation and Comparison with 18F-FDG J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2003; 44(4): 533 - 539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Kadrmas and P. E. Christian Comparative Evaluation of Lesion Detectability for 6 PET Imaging Platforms Using a Highly Reproducible Whole-Body Phantom with 22Na Lesions and Localization ROC Analysis J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2002; 43(11): 1545 - 1554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. E. Daube-Witherspoon, J. S. Karp, M. E. Casey, F. P. DiFilippo, H. Hines, G. Muehllehner, V. Simcic, C. W. Stearns, L.-E. Adam, S. Kohlmyer, et al. PET Performance Measurements Using the NEMA NU 2-2001 Standard J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2002; 43(10): 1398 - 1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Belhocine, G. Pierard, M. de Labrassinne, T. Lahaye, and P. Rigo Staging of Regional Nodes in AJCC Stage I and II Melanoma: 18FDG PET Imaging versus Sentinel Node Detection Oncologist, August 1, 2002; 7(4): 271 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Knesaurek New Developments in PET Instrumentation: Quo Vadis PET? J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2001; 42(12): 1831 - 1832. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
