PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Andrew L. Goertzen
AU  - Qinan Bao
AU  - Mélanie Bergeron
AU  - Eric Blankemeyer
AU  - Stephan Blinder
AU  - Mario Cañadas
AU  - Arion F. Chatziioannou
AU  - Katherine Dinelle
AU  - Esmat Elhami
AU  - Hans-Sonke Jans
AU  - Eduardo Lage
AU  - Roger Lecomte
AU  - Vesna Sossi
AU  - Suleman Surti
AU  - Yuan-Chuan Tai
AU  - Juan José Vaquero
AU  - Esther Vicente
AU  - Darin A. Williams
AU  - Richard Laforest
TI  - NEMA NU 4-2008 Comparison of Preclinical PET Imaging Systems
AID  - 10.2967/jnumed.111.099382
DP  - 2012 Aug 01
TA  - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
PG  - 1300--1309
VI  - 53
IP  - 8
4099  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/53/8/1300.short
4100  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/53/8/1300.full
SO  - J Nucl Med2012 Aug 01; 53
AB  - The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of small-animal tomographs was recently published. Before this standard, there were no standard testing procedures for preclinical PET systems, and manufacturers could not provide clear specifications similar to those available for clinical systems under NEMA NU 2-1994 and 2-2001. Consequently, performance evaluation papers used methods that were modified ad hoc from the clinical PET NEMA standard, thus making comparisons between systems difficult. Methods: We acquired NEMA NU 4-2008 performance data for a collection of commercial animal PET systems manufactured since 2000: microPET P4, microPET R4, microPET Focus 120, microPET Focus 220, Inveon, ClearPET, Mosaic HP, Argus (formerly eXplore Vista), VrPET, LabPET 8, and LabPET 12. The data included spatial resolution, counting-rate performance, scatter fraction, sensitivity, and image quality and were acquired using settings for routine PET. Results: The data showed a steady improvement in system performance for newer systems as compared with first-generation systems, with notable improvements in spatial resolution and sensitivity. Conclusion: Variation in system design makes direct comparisons between systems from different vendors difficult. When considering the results from NEMA testing, one must also consider the suitability of the PET system for the specific imaging task at hand.