Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance evaluation of the Philips MOSAIC small animal PET scanner

  • Original article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In this study an evaluation of the performance of the Philips MOSAIC small animal PET scanner is presented, with special emphasis on the ability of the system to provide quantitatively accurate PET images.

Methods

The performance evaluation was structured according to NEMA-like procedures.

Results

The transaxial spatial resolution of the system (radial component) ranged between 2.7 mm FWHM at the centre and 3.2 mm FWHM at a radial offset of 45 mm from the centre. The axial spatial resolution of the system ranged between 3.4 mm FWHM at the centre and 5.8 mm FWHM at a radial offset of 45 mm from the centre. The scatter fraction was determined for a mouse- as well as for a rat-sized phantom, and the values obtained were 9.6% and 16.8%, respectively. For the mouse phantom, the maximum count rate measured was 560 kcps at 93 MBq; the maximum NEC rate equalled 308 kcps at 1.7 MBq/ml. For the rat phantom, these values were 400 kcps at 100 MBq and 129 kcps at 0.24 MBq/ml, respectively. The sensitivity of the system was derived to be 0.65%. An energy window between 410 and 665 keV was used in all experiments.

Conclusion

The MOSAIC system exhibits moderate spatial resolution and sensitivity values, but good NEC performance. In combination with its relatively large field of view, the system allows for high-throughput whole-body imaging of mice and rats. The accurate measurement of relative changes in radiotracer distributions is feasible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chatziioannou AF. PET scanners dedicated to molecular imaging of small animal models. Mol Imag Biol 2002;4:47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tai Y-C, Laforest R. Instrumentation aspects of animal PET. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2005;7:255–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Surti S, Karp JS, Perkins AE, Freifelder R, Muehllehner G. Design evaluation of A-PET: a high sensitivity animal PET camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2003;50:1357–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Surti S, Karp JS, Perkins AE, Cardi CA, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Kuhn A, et al. Imaging performance of A-PET: a small animal PET camera. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005;24:844–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Freifelder R, Cardi CA, Adam LE, et al. Performance of a brain PET camera based on Anger-logic gadolinium oxyorthosilicate detectors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1340–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Surti S, Karp JS. Imaging characteristics of a 3-dimensional GSO whole body PET camera. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1040–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2001: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fahey FH. Data acquisition in PET imaging. J Nucl Med Technol 2002;30:39–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med 1987;28:1717–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Karp JS, Muehllehner G, Mankoff DA, Ordonez CE, Ollinger JM, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Continuous-slice PENN-PET: a positron tomograph with volume imaging capability. J Nucl Med 1990;31:617–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Matej S, Karp JS, Lewitt RM. A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihoods in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2001;48:24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Defrise M, Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Michel C, Sibomana M, Newport DF. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3-D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1997;16:145–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weber S, Bauer A. Small animal PET: aspects of performance assessment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1545–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lecomte R, Cadorette J, Rodrigue S, Lapointe D, Rouleau D, Bentourkia M, et al. Initial results from the Sherbrooke avalanche photodiode positron tomograph. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1996;43:1952–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber S, Herzog H, Cremer M, Engels R, Hamacher K, Kehren F, et al. Evaluation of the TierPET system. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1999;46:1177–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ziegler SI, Pichler BJ, Boening G, Rafecas M, Pimpl W, Lorenz E, et al. A prototype high-resolution animal positron tomograph with avalanche photodiode arrays and LSO crystals. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:136–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Seidel J, Vaquero JJ, Green MV. Resolution uniformity and sensitivity of the NIH ATLAS small animal PET scanner: comparison to simulated LSO scanners without depth-of-interaction capability. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2003;50:1347–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang Y, Tai Y-C, Siegel S, Newport DF, Bai B, Li Q, et al. Optimization and performance evaluation of the microPET II scanner for in vivo small-animal imaging. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:2527–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tai Y-C, Ruangma A, Rowland D, Siegel S, Newport DF, Chow PL, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. J Nucl Med 2005;46:455–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schäfers KP, Reader AJ, Kriens M, Knoess C, Schober O, Schäfers M. Performance evaluation of the 32-module quadHIDAC small animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2005;46:996–1004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bailey DL, Jones T, Spinks TJ. A method for measuring the absolute sensitivity of positron emission tomographic scanners. Eur J Nucl Med 1991;18:374–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1990;37:783–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Knoess C, Siegel S, Smith A, Newport D, Richerzhagen N, Winkeler A, et al. Performance evaluation of the microPET R4 PET scanner for rodents. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:737–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoffman EJ, Huang S-C, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1979;3:299–308.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Matej S, Lewitt RM. 3D-FRP: direct Fourier reconstruction with Fourier reprojection for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2001;48:1378–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lecomte R. Technology challenges in small animal PET imaging. Nucl Instr Meth Phys Res A 2004;527:157–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Karp JS, Muehllehner G, Qu H, Yan XH. Singles transmission in volume-imaging PET with a 137Cs source. Phys Med Biol 1995;40:929–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bilger K, Adam LE, Karp JS. Collimation of a 137Cs point source for transmission scanning in PET. 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 2002.

  29. Accorsi R, Adam L-E, Werner ME, Karp JS. Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:2577–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Dr. R. Beck for her help with the animal study and we acknowledge the enthusiastic help of Dr. Y. Haemisch (Philips Medical Systems) in understanding the system.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universitaet Muenchen, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Marc C. Huisman, Sybille Reder, Axel W. Weber, Sibylle I. Ziegler & Markus Schwaiger

  2. Philips Research Laboratories, Aachen, Germany

    Axel W. Weber

Authors
  1. Marc C. Huisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybille Reder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Axel W. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sibylle I. Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus Schwaiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc C. Huisman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huisman, M.C., Reder, S., Weber, A.W. et al. Performance evaluation of the Philips MOSAIC small animal PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34, 532–540 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0271-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0271-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation