Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 46, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1825-1834

  Watson, Charles C ^a,f   Casey, Michael E ^a   Bendriem, Bernard ^a   Carney, Jonathan P ^b   Townsend, David W ^c   Eberl, Stefan ^d   Meikle, Steve ^d   DiFilippo, Frank P ^e  

^a SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f CPS Innovations   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical data quality; Noise equivalent counting rate; Optimal injected dose; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; LUTETIUM; LUTETIUM OXYORTHOSILICATE; SILICATE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION SCATTERING; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INJECTION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; WHOLE BODY COUNTING; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INJECTIONS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REFERENCE STANDARDS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING; WHOLE-BODY COUNTING;

EID: 33644828174     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2001: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.
2. Bailey DL, Jones T, Spinks TJ, et al. Noise equivalent count measurements in a neuro-PET scanner with retractable septa. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991;10: 256-260.
3. Dahlbom M, Cherry SR, Eriksson L, et al. Optimization of PET instrumentation for brain activation studies. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1993;40:1048-1054.
4. Stearns CW, Cherry SR, Thompson CJ. NECR analysis of 3D brain PET scanner designs. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1995;42:1075-1079.
5. Badawi RD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, et al. Optimization of noise-equivalent count rates in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:1755-1776.
6. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS, Casey ME, et al. PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1398-1409.
7. Badawi RD, Adam L-E, Zimmerman RE. A simulation-based assessment of the revised NEMA NU-2 70-cm long test phantom for PET. In: 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2001:M6-6.
8. Smith RJ, Karp JS. Comparisons of clinical performance with standard measures of PET cameras. In: 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 1998:M6-11.
9. Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, et al. Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1268-1278.
10. Watson CC, Casey ME, Beyer T, et al. Evaluation of clinical PET count rate performance. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1379-1385.
11. Watson CC, Casey ME, Michel C, Bendriem B. Advances in scatter correction for 3D PET/CT. In: 2004 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2004:M5-166.
12. Watson CC. Count rate dependence of local signal-to-noise ratio in positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2004;51:2670-2680.
13. Müller JW. Dead-time problems. Nucl Instrum Methods. 1973;112:47-57.
14. Badawi RD, Domigan P, Johnson O, et al. Count-rate dependent event mispositioning and NEC in PET. In: 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2002: M7-43.
15. Dahlbom M, Schiepers C, Czernin J. Comparison of noise equivalent count rates and image noise. In: 2004 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2004:M9-303.
16. Stearns CW. Estimating an acquisition-specific NEC curve for PET acquisitions. In: 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2003:M10-205.
17. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Mulnix T, et al. PET performance measurements for an LSO based combined PET/CT scanner using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2003;45:813-821.
18. Eriksson LE, Watson CC, Wienhard K, et al. The ECAT HRRT: an example of NEMA scatter estimation issues for LSO based PET systems. In: 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2003:M3-139.
19. Puterbaugh KC, Breeding JE, Musrock MS, Seaver CE, Young JW. Performance comparison of a current LSO PET scanner versus upgraded electronics. In: 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference [book on CD-ROM]. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2003:M3-133.
20. Paans AMJ, Boerdijk SMM, Willemsen ATM, Pruim J. Source of impaired image quality in 3D whole-body FDG PET scanning [letter]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1207.
21. 18F-FDG required for whole-body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1615-1619.
22. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:797-801.
23. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:603-607.
24. Everaert H, Vanhove C. Reply [letter]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31: 1208.