Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportInstrumentation & Data Analysis

Performance comparison of ultra-ultra high resolution collimators to low-energy high resolution collimators

Christopher Leyson, Jurgen Seidel, Roberto Maass-Moreno and Richard Reba
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2409;
Christopher Leyson
1Integrated Research Facility, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jurgen Seidel
1Integrated Research Facility, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roberto Maass-Moreno
2Nuclear Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Reba
1Integrated Research Facility, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2409

Objectives We compared the performance of a unique ultra-ultra high resolution (UUHR) collimator to that of a low-energy high resolution (LEHR) collimator. The UUHR collimator was designed to accommodate SPECT scanning in a biosafety level-4 (BSL-4) environment where a containment tube spanning the BSL-4 area and the imaging room limits the SPECT orbit.

Methods We measured the system spatial resolution (FWHM) and the collimator sensitivity following the NEMA performance standard. Reconstructed SPECT image resolution was determined using three 99mTc point sources inside the containment tube. In addition, we acquired SPECT images of a Jaszczak resolution phantom (Data Spectrum, Hillsborough NC) containing hot spheres to measure recovery coefficients.

Results Resolution degradation at increasing distance from the collimators was less for UUHR collimators than for LEHR collimators. With UUHR collimators, we achieved a similar resolution at 35 cm as with LEHR collimators at 20 cm. Collimator sensitivity at 10 cm was 56.4 cpm/µCi (UUHR) and 168 cpm/μCi (LEHR). At a 33-cm radius orbit, the SPECT resolution of a central point source was 10.6 mm (transaxial) and 11.2 mm (axial) with UUHR collimators, whereas resolution deteriorated to 17.3 mm (transaxial) and 18.8 mm (axial) with LEHR collimators. The two largest of six total groups of rods in the resolution phantom were resolved in UUHR-collimated images but not in the LEHR-collimated images. Recovery coefficients for a 25-mm diameter sphere were 1.02 (UUHR collimators) and 0.72 (LEHR collimators).

Conclusions By using UUHR collimators, we achieved a SPECT resolution of about 10-12 mm FWHM in our BSL-4 setting, which is similar to the resolution typically obtained in clinical settings using LEHR collimators. However, the improvement in spatial resolution with UUHR collimators comes at the price of reduced sensitivity compared to LEHR collimators.

Research Support This work was performed under Battelle Memorial contract HHSN272200200016I with NIAID

Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 53, Issue supplement 1
May 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance comparison of ultra-ultra high resolution collimators to low-energy high resolution collimators
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Performance comparison of ultra-ultra high resolution collimators to low-energy high resolution collimators
Christopher Leyson, Jurgen Seidel, Roberto Maass-Moreno, Richard Reba
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2409;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Performance comparison of ultra-ultra high resolution collimators to low-energy high resolution collimators
Christopher Leyson, Jurgen Seidel, Roberto Maass-Moreno, Richard Reba
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (supplement 1) 2409;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Instrumentation & Data Analysis

  • Exploring the impact of feature selection methods and classification algorithms on the predictive performance of PET radiomic ML models in lung cancer
  • Accuracy of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT absorbed dose estimation by reducing the imaging points
  • Assessment of AI-Enhanced Quantitative Volumetric MRI with Semi-Quantitative Analysis in 18F-FDG Metabolic Imaging for Alzheimer's Diagnosis.
Show more Instrumentation & Data Analysis

MTA II: Instrumentation Posters

  • Optimizing multi-stage CdZnTe Compton camera for real-time proton range determination in proton radiotherapy
  • Optimized 82Rb infusion profile for flow quantification with low count-rate PET system using a physical flow phantom
  • Developing freehand PET - status and challenges
Show more MTA II: Instrumentation Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire