Objective and subjective comparison of standard 2-D and fully 3-D reconstructed data on a PET/CT system

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 555-559

  Strobel, Klaus ^a   Rüdy, Matthias ^a   Treyer, Valerie ^a   Veit Haibach, Patrick ^a   Burger, Cyrill ^a   Hany, Thomas F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

2D; 3D; PET CT; Tumor

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLON CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEAN BODY WEIGHT; LIVER METASTASIS; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SAMPLE SIZE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; WHOLE BODY CT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 34249815204     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328194f1e3     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2005; 35:186-196.
2. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2500-2507.
3. 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; 45:714-723.
4. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1369-1379.
5. 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; 31:867-881.
6. Visvikis D, Griffiths D, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Ell PJ. Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32:1050-1056.
7. Cutler PD, Xu M. Strategies to improve 3D whole-body PET image reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41:1453-1467.
8. Liu X, Defrise M, Michel C, Kinahan P, Defrise M, Townsend D. Exact rebinning methods for three-dimensional PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1999; 18:657-664.
9. Liu X, Comtat C, Michel C, Kinahan P, Defrise M, Townsend D. Comparison of 3-D reconstruction with 3D-OSEM and with FORE+OSEM for PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001; 20:804-814.
10. Brasse D, Kinahan PE, Lartizien C, Comtat C, Casey M, Michel C. Correction methods for random coincidences in fully 3D whole-body PET: impact on data and image quality. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:859-867.
11. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002; 225:575-581.
12. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH, 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.
13. Keyes Jr JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995; 36:1836-1839.
14. 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:608-613.
15. Seemann MD. PET/CT: fundamental principles. Eur J Med Res 2004; 9:241-246.