Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1050-1056

  Visvikis, D ^a   Griffiths, D ^b   Costa, D C ^c,d   Bomanji, J ^c   Ell, P J ^c  

^a CHU MORVAN   (France)

^b London Petroleum Section   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d HPP Medicina Molecular SA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

3D PET; 18F FDG; Whole body imaging

Indexed keywords

BISMUTH DERIVATIVE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ATTENUATION; BODY WEIGHT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARAMETER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TIME; TWO DIMENSIONAL POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; WHOLE BODY SCANNER;

EID: 25144457983     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-005-1809-9     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncol 2001;2(3):157-64.
2. Visvikis D, Turzo A, Bizais Y, Cheze-Le Rest C. Technology related parameters affecting quantification in positron emission tomography imaging. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25:637-41.
3. Bendriem B, Townsend TW. The theory and practice of 3D PET. Kluwer Academic 1998.
4. Badawi RD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, Sutcliffe JL, Maisey MN. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:1755-76.
5. Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trebossen R. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole body PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1268-78.
6. Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, Lecchi M, Castiglioni I, Gilardi MC et al. Performance evaluation of the new whole body PET/CT scanner: discovery ST. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(6):867-81.
7. Lartizien C, Kinahan PE, Comtat C. A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole body PET imaging protocols. J Nucl Med 2004;45(4):714-23.
8. Visvikis D, Griffiths D, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Comparison of clinical 2D and 3D PET imaging using a BGO based dedicated system (abstract). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(S2):S331.
9. Lodge MA, Lowe J, Lowe G, et al. A comparison of 2D and 3D PET images using an interleaved septa-in/septa-out acquisition protocol (abstract). J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):206P.
10. Raylman RR, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Capabilities of two- and three-dimensional FDG-PET for detecting small lesions and lymph nodes in the upper torso: a dynamic phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:39-45.
11. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med 2004;45:797-801.
12. 18F-FDG required for whole body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1615-9.
13. 18FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326-35.
14. Stearns CW, Fessler JA. 3D PET reconstruction with FORE and WLS-OS-EM. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:912-5.
15. Bergstrom M, Eriksson L, Bohm C, Blomqvist G, Litton J. Correction for scattered radiation in a ring detector positron camera by integral transformation of the projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1983;7(1):42-50.
16. Wollenweber SD. Parameterisation of a model based 3D PET scatter correction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2002;49:722-7.
17. Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer S, Stearns CW. Comparison of NEC and subjective image quality measures in 2D and 3D whole body PET imaging. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;3:1393-6.
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
19. Chiang S, Cardi C, Matej S, Zhuang H, Newberg A, Alavi A. Clinical validation of fully 3D versus 2.5D RAMLA reconstruction on the Philips-ADAC CPET PET scanner. Nucl Med Comm 2004;25:1103-7.
20. El Fakhri G, Holdsworth C, Badawi RD, Santos PA, Moore SC, Van den Abbeele AD. Impact of acquisition geometry and patient habitus on lesion detectability in whole body FDG-PET: a channelised hotelling observer study. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:1402-5.
21. Kadrmas DJ, Christian PE, Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer SG, Stearns CW. Comparative evaluation of 2D and 3D lesion detectability on a full-ring BGO PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):204P.