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 Surti, S. Articles by Karp, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Surti, S. Articles by Karp, J. S.

Imaging Characteristics of a 3-Dimensional GSO Whole-Body PET Camera

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. (A) SF as function of lower energy gate (ELLD) for 20 x 70 cm and 35 x 70 cm line source phantoms. Data were acquired at low activity level so that randoms were <3% of collected rates. (B) Calculated relative NEC vs. ELLD for 20 x 70 cm and 35 x 70 cm line source phantoms.

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 2. (A and B) Counting rate curves measured for 20 x 70 cm line source phantom with standard ELLD of 410 keV (A) and optimized ELLD of 425 keV (B). (C and D) Counting rate curves measured for larger 35 x 70 cm line source phantom with standard ELLD of 410 keV (C) and optimized ELLD of 450 keV (D). (E and F) SF as function of slice number for 20 x 70 cm (E) and 35 x 70 cm (F) line source phantoms.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 3. Counting rate curves measured for 20 x 19 cm uniform cylinder with standard ELLD of 410 keV. This cylinder is more representative of brain imaging situations.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 4. Contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) (A and C) and variability (B and D) for image-quality torso phantom for varying acquisition times. Ratio of activity concentration in hot spheres to background is 8:1 (A and B) and 4:1 (C and D). CRC was similar for all acquisition times except at 1 min. Results from 9-min acquisition are shown in CRC plot. Average error bars in variability plots were 6% (B) and 8.5% (D). Dotted vertical line in all 4 plots marks separation between large cold spheres on its right and small hot spheres on its left.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 5. CRC (A) and variability (B) for image-quality torso phantom for varying randoms and scatter correction techniques. Data were collected for 3 min, which is clinical standard for single bed position.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 6. (A–E) Reconstructed central slice for image-quality phantom. Images were acquired at singles rates of 4.6 Mcps (A), 7.1 Mcps (B), 10.9 Mcps (C) (clinically appropriate), 16.9 Mcps (D), and 26.1 Mcps (E). In these images, randoms were subtracted after Casey averaging of delays data followed by SSS for scatter correction.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 7. CRC (A and C) and variability (B and D) for image-quality torso phantom for varying singles rates (Mcps). Two rows represent 2 different ways of performing randoms corrections. Top row is after direct randoms subtraction of delays data, whereas bottom row is after subtraction of Casey-averaged delays data. For scatter correction, SSS was performed.

View larger version (59K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 8. (A) Selected transverse, sagittal, and coronal slices from 18F-FDG study of 55-kg patient. Patient was scanned 60 min after injection. (B) Selected transverse, sagittal, and coronal slices from 18F-FDG study of 100-kg patient. Patient was scanned 60 min after injection.