PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 43, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 1398-1409

  Daube Witherspoon, Margaret E ^a   Karp, Joel S ^a   Casey, Michael E ^a   DiFilippo, Frank P ^a   Hines, Horace ^a   Muehllehner, Gerd ^a   Simcic, Vilim ^a   Stearns, Charles W ^a   Adam, Lars Eric ^a   Kohlmyer, Steve ^a   Sossi, Vesna ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Performance measurements; PET

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; IMAGE QUALITY; PHANTOM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCINTILLATION CAMERA; STANDARD;

GAMMA CAMERAS; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; SCATTERING, RADIATION; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 0036788462     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Karp JS, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Hoffman EJ, et al. Performance standards in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:2342-2350.
2. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-1994: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1994.
3. International Electrotechnical Commission. EC Standard 61675-1: Rodionuclide Imaging Devices - Characteristics and Test Conditions. Part 1. Positron Emission Tomographs. Geneva. Switzerland; International Electrotechnical Commission; 1998.
4. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2001: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.
5. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1987;28:1717-1724.
6. Bailey DL, Jones T, Spinks TJ. A method for measuring the absolute sensitivity of positron emission tomographic scanners. Ear J Nucl Med. 1991;18:374-379.
7. Strother SC. Casey ME. Hoffman EJ, Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating count-rates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;37:783-788.
8. Guzzardi R, Bellina CR, Knoop B, et al. Methodologies for performance evaluation of positron emission tomographs. J Nucl Biol Med. 1991;35:141-157.
9. Adam L-E, Karp JS. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Smith RJ. Performance of a whole-body PET scanner using curve-plate Nal(TI) detectors. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1821-1830.
10. Liow JS, Strother SC. The convergence of object-dependent resolution in maximum likelihood based tomographic reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 1993;38:55-70.
11. Sossi V, Pointon B, Boudoux C. et al. NEMA NU 2-2000 performance measurements on an ADAC MCD camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2001;48:1518-1523.
12. De Pierro AR. On some nonlinear iterative relaxation methods in remote sensing. Matematica Aplicada Computacional. 1989;8:153-166.
13. Browne JA, De Pierro AR. A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihoods in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996;15:687-699.
14. Nellemann P, Hines H, Braymer W. Muehllehner G, Geagan M. Performance characteristics of a dual head SPECT scanner with PET capability. In: Moonier PA, ed. 1995 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. Piscataway, NJ: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 1996:1751-1755.
15. Adam L-E, Zaers J. Ostertag H, Trojan H, Bellemann ME, Brix G. Performance evaluation of the whole-body PET scanner ECAT EXACT HR+ following the IEC standard, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1997;44:1172-1179.
16. DeGrado TR, Turkington TG. Williams JJ, Stearns CW, Hoffman JM, Coleman RE. Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1398-1406.