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

This Article Abstract 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 Daube-Witherspoon, M. E. Articles by Sossi, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Daube-Witherspoon, M. E. Articles by Sossi, V.

PET Performance Measurements Using the NEMA NU 2-2001 Standard

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
² CTI PET Systems, Knoxville, Tennessee
³ Picker International, Cleveland, Ohio
⁴ Philips Medical Systems, Milpitas, California
⁵ Philips Medical Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
⁶ Siemens Medical Systems, Hoffman Estates, Illinois
⁷ General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
⁸ Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
⁹ Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Effect of acquisition and reconstruction sampling on transverse spatial resolution. FWHM values for central point source are shown for ADAC UGM C-PET scanner as function of radial sampling in sinogram and image pixel size. Following NU 2-2001 protocol, best spatial resolution would be measured; clinical parameters typically have 2- to 4-mm sinogram radial sampling and pixel size, which result in significantly degraded resolution on this system.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 2. Comparison of phantom and patient counting rates. (Top) Prompt rate vs. singles rate for 70-cm-long line source in 20-cm-diameter polyethylene cylinder (solid line) and for whole-body patient studies () taken on ADAC UGM C-PET scanner. (Bottom) Prompt rate vs. singles rate for 20-cm-diameter x 19-cm-long water-filled cylinder (solid line) and for brain patient studies () taken on University of Pennsylvania G-PET scanner. Singles rate is proportional to (unknown) activity in patients.

View larger version (54K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 3. Representative image from image quality measurement for 6-min emission scan with hot sphere:background activity ratio of 8:1. Data were taken on ADAC UGM C-PET scanner and reconstructed with 3D RAMLA. Shown on right is placement of ROIs for quantitative analysis. Not shown is ROI for assessment of accuracy of corrections for attenuation and scatter, drawn on central lung-like cylindric insert.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 4. Effect of reconstruction algorithm on image quality results taken on ADAC UGM C-PET scanner. Results for 1.7-cm hot sphere are shown for FBP for Hanning filters with cutoff frequencies ranging between 2 and 0.33 times Nyquist frequency as well as for ramp filter with cutoff at Nyquist frequency and 3D RAMLA for range of reconstruction parameters (number of iterations and relaxation parameter). Arrow shows results for parameters used in clinical studies. FORE = Fourier rebinning.