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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

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

Accuracy and variability of PET activity concentration measurements for small volumes and short time frames

Lucy Pike, Paul Schleyer and Paul Marsden
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2091;
Lucy Pike
1Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Schleyer
1Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Marsden
1Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2091

Objectives Commercial PET-CT systems are optimised for whole-body FDG-PET and there is little data on dynamic imaging performance. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and variability of activity concentration measurements for small objects, and for the short frame times and range of count rates encountered in dynamic acquisitions.

Methods Acquisitions of the NEMA image quality phantom were performed on a GE Discovery VCT PET-CT scanner. A protocol with frame durations of 10x1s, 10x2s, 10x5s, 10x10s, 5x20s, 5x30s, 5x60s and 5x300s was repeated four times as the total 18F activity decayed from 298 to 30MBq. Data were reconstructed using iterative and filtered back projection (FBP) algorithms; corrections for attenuation, scatter and dead time were performed. For the 6 spheres in the phantom (diameters 10-37mm), bias and variability were assessed for max (Amax) and mean (Amean) activity concentration measurements.

Results For short frames (<10s) Amax measurements showed a positive bias with both FBP and iterative reconstructions. Bias increased as frame duration decreased, up to 67% for FBP and 148% for iterative when using 1s frames. Variance for repeated measurements also increased for short frame times and decreasing sphere volume. Greatest variance was for 1 s frames with the 10mm sphere giving CoV of 35.2% for Amax and 53.2% for Amean. This compares to CoV of 2.9% for Amax and 2.7% for Amean for the 300s frames. Dead-time effects were observed at higher activities causing bias of up to 21% at an activity of 276MBq. As expected partial volume effects increase as sphere size decreases to 10mm leading to biases of up to 68% and 72% for Amax and Amean respectively.

Conclusions We have shown that substantial bias and variability exists in PET uptake measurements for small objects acquired over short time frames and at high count rates. These may lead to errors in calculation of kinetic parameters in dynamic PET studies.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 55, Issue supplement 1
May 2014
  • 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.
Accuracy and variability of PET activity concentration measurements for small volumes and short time frames
(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
Accuracy and variability of PET activity concentration measurements for small volumes and short time frames
Lucy Pike, Paul Schleyer, Paul Marsden
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2091;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Accuracy and variability of PET activity concentration measurements for small volumes and short time frames
Lucy Pike, Paul Schleyer, Paul Marsden
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2091;
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: Image Generation Posters

  • Incorporating HYPR de-noising within iterative PET reconstruction (HYPR-OSEM)
  • Feasibility of Quantitative and Morphometric Bone Analysis Using a Next Generation Digital PET/CT Platform
  • Real-time Motion Correction Using High Resolution, High Frame Rate Video Monitoring and 64-bit Listmode Event Repositioning
Show more MTA II: Image Generation Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire