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
Research ArticleOncology

Performance of Digital PET Compared with High-Resolution Conventional PET in Patients with Cancer

Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn. A. van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H. Slump, Siert Knollema and Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine October 2020, 61 (10) 1448-1454; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.238105
Daniëlle Koopman
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
2Technical Medicine Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jorn. A. van Dalen
3Department of Medical Physics, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henk Stevens
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cornelis H. Slump
2Technical Medicine Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siert Knollema
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pieter L. Jager
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Information

vol. 61 no. 10 1448-1454
DOI 
https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.238105
PubMed 
32060217

Published By 
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Print ISSN 
0161-5505
Online ISSN 
2159-662X
History 
  • Received for publication October 10, 2019
  • Accepted for publication February 3, 2020
  • Published online October 1, 2020.

Article Versions

  • previous version (February 14, 2020 - 14:01).
  • You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Copyright & Usage 
© 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Author Information

  1. Daniëlle Koopman1,2,
  2. Jorn. A. van Dalen3,
  3. Henk Stevens1,
  4. Cornelis H. Slump2,
  5. Siert Knollema1 and
  6. Pieter L. Jager1
  1. 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  2. 2Technical Medicine Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; and
  3. 3Department of Medical Physics, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  1. For correspondence or reprints contact: Daniëlle Koopman, Isala, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands. E-mail: daniellekoopman20{at}hotmail.com
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Cited By...

  • 35 Citations
  • 34 Citations
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Digital PET/CT allows for shorter acquisition protocols or reduced radiopharmaceutical dose in [18F]-FDG PET/CT
    Ian Alberts, Christos Sachpekidis, George Prenosil, Marco Viscione, Karl Peter Bohn, Clemens Mingels, Kuangyu Shi, Ali Ashar-Oromieh, Axel Rominger
    Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2021 35 4
  • Digital PET vs Analog PET: Clinical Implications?
    Diego Alfonso López-Mora, Ignasi Carrió, Albert Flotats
    Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 2022 52 3
  • Diagnostic value of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer
    Hideaki Tsuyoshi, Tetsuya Tsujikawa, Shizuka Yamada, Hidehiko Okazawa, Yoshio Yoshida
    EJNMMI Research 2020 10 1
  • The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer
    Ian Alberts, Jan-Niklas Hünermund, Christos Sachpekidis, Clemens Mingels, Viktor Fech, Karl Peter Bohn, Axel Rominger, Ali Afshar-Oromieh
    European Radiology 2021 31 10
  • Fully digital PET is unaffected by any deterioration in TOF resolution and TOF image quality in the wide range of routine PET count rates
    Julien Salvadori, Freddy Odille, Gilles Karcher, Pierre-Yves Marie, Laetitia Imbert
    EJNMMI Physics 2021 8 1
  • Added Value of Digital over Analog PET/CT: More Significant as Image Field of View and Body Mass Index Increase
    Shirin Hatami, Sarah Frye, Anna McMunn, Crystal Botkin, Razi Muzaffar, Kara Christopher, Medhat Osman
    Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 2020 48 4
  • Comparing lesion detection efficacy and image quality across different PET system generations to optimize the iodine-124 PET protocol for recurrent thyroid cancer
    David Kersting, Walter Jentzen, Miriam Sraieb, Pedro Fragoso Costa, Maurizio Conti, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch, Michael Nader, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang Peter Fendler, Christoph Rischpler, Manuel Weber
    EJNMMI Physics 2021 8 1
  • Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study
    Tonke L. de Jong, Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn A. van Dalen, Aline Tegelaar, Joris D. van Dijk, Henk Stevens, Pieter L. Jager
    Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2022 36 8
  • Digital versus analog PET/CT in patients with known or suspected liver metastases
    Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo, Diego Alfonso López-Mora, Albert Flotats, Valle Camacho, Marina Sizova, Safae Abouzian, Joan Duch, Alejando Fernández, Montserrat Estorch, Ignasi Carrió
    Nuclear Medicine Communications 2021 42 4
  • Small lesion depiction and quantification accuracy of oncological 18F-FDG PET/CT with small voxel and Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction
    Lei Xu, Ru-Shuai Li, Run-Ze Wu, Rui Yang, Qin-Qin You, Xiao-Chen Yao, Hui-Fang Xie, Yang Lv, Yun Dong, Feng Wang, Qing-Le Meng
    EJNMMI Physics 2022 9 1

Article usage

Article usage: February 2020 to April 2025

AbstractFullPdf
Feb 20209030130
Mar 2020328044
Apr 2020167015
May 2020105025
Jun 202080020
Jul 20206005
Aug 2020113029
Sep 202091052
Oct 2020155942174
Nov 2020319553
Dec 20201921034
Jan 2021145937
Feb 2021134827
Mar 2021113628
Apr 2021393432
May 2021372628
Jun 2021244343
Jul 2021402942
Aug 2021192429
Sep 2021283331
Oct 2021283366
Nov 2021172853
Dec 2021354546
Jan 2022294247
Feb 2022212322
Mar 2022204720
Apr 2022133723
May 2022203234
Jun 2022263129
Jul 2022224512
Aug 2022151917
Sep 2022182622
Oct 2022152129
Nov 202293719
Dec 202292512
Jan 202382916
Feb 202393450
Mar 2023173624
Apr 202371912
May 202351918
Jun 2023161813
Jul 202382119
Aug 2023652516
Sep 2023112219
Oct 2023101718
Nov 2023262320
Dec 2023133720
Jan 2024403019
Feb 2024102315
Mar 2024112980
Apr 2024112031
May 202484725
Jun 2024106521
Jul 2024116534
Aug 2024294237
Sep 2024274122
Oct 2024133727
Nov 202494422
Dec 202465618
Jan 202534722
Feb 2025118920
Mar 2025145429
Apr 20251811443
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 61 (10)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue 10
October 1, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
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 of Digital PET Compared with High-Resolution Conventional PET in Patients with Cancer
(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 of Digital PET Compared with High-Resolution Conventional PET in Patients with Cancer
Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn. A. van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H. Slump, Siert Knollema, Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2020, 61 (10) 1448-1454; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.238105

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Performance of Digital PET Compared with High-Resolution Conventional PET in Patients with Cancer
Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn. A. van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H. Slump, Siert Knollema, Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2020, 61 (10) 1448-1454; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.238105
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reported Differences Between Digital and Analog PET/CT Studies
  • Added Value of Digital over Analog PET/CT: More Significant as Image Field of View and Body Mass Index Increase
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Considerations and approach prior to treatment with 177Lutetium DOTATATE Radionuclide Therapy
  • Expanding Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Management of Prostate Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions
  • A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing: Beware of Physiologic Ureteric Activity Mimicking a Pathologic Lymph Node!
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • Considerations and approach prior to treatment with 177Lutetium DOTATATE Radionuclide Therapy
  • Expanding Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Management of Prostate Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions
  • A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing: Beware of Physiologic Ureteric Activity Mimicking a Pathologic Lymph Node!
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire