HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Geworski, L. Articles by Munz, D. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Geworski, L. Articles by Munz, D. L.

Multicenter Comparison of Calibration and Cross Calibration of PET Scanners

Lilli Geworski, PhD¹, Bernd O. Knoop, PhD², Maike de Wit, MD³, Velimir Ivanevi, MD¹, Roland Bares, MD⁴ and Dieter L. Munz, MD¹

¹ Clinic for Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Charité, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
² Clinic for Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
³ Department of Oncology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
⁴ Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the calibration of PET scanners and their cross calibration to peripheral devices in a multicenter study. Methods: Twenty-three dedicated PET scanners were investigated, applying standardized protocols. To ensure exact determination of the activity used, dose calibrators were checked using ⁶⁸Ge standards. Results: Nine of 19 and 11 of 20 scanners displayed an error of <5% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional acquisition modes, respectively. Four and 5 scanners displayed an error of 10% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional modes, respectively. All other scanners yielded errors of 5% to <10%. Because of hardware and software problems, the measurements performed on 1 scanner could not be adequately analyzed. Conclusion: An investigation of calibration is mandatory. Especially for quantitative analyses in clinical multicenter trials, identification of potentially miscalibrated scanners is necessary.

Key Words: PET • calibration • multicenter study

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. de Wit, W. Brenner, M. Hartmann, J. Kotzerke, D. Hellwig, J. Lehmann, C. Franzius, S. Kliesch, M. Schlemmer, K. Tatsch, et al. [18F]-FDG-PET in clinical stage I/II non-seminomatous germ cell tumours: results of the German multicentre trial Ann. Onc., September 1, 2008; 19(9): 1619 - 1623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]