Quantitative assessment of the influence of location, internal temperature, idle time, and normalization on the sensitivity of a mobile PET/CT scanner

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 147-150

  Belakhlef, Sam ^a   Church, Cliff ^a   Hays, Allison ^a   Fraser, Ron ^a   Lakhanpal, Suresh ^a  

^a PHOEBE PUTNEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Instrumentation; Mobile PET CT sensitivity; Molecular imaging; Parameters affecting sensitivity; PET CT; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ECOLOGY; ERROR; PHANTOM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RURAL AREA; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT; TIME;

EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TEMPERATURE; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY SCANNERS, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 51349160120     PISSN: 00914916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.108.052555     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1968-1974.
2. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap J, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl 1):4S-14S.
3. 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:784-788.
4. Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL, et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology: impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:223-230.
5. Kostakoglu L, Agress H Jr, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics. 2003;23:315-340.
6. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231:305-332.
7. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Mulnix T, Humm JL, Watson CC. PET performance measurements for an LSO-based combined PET/CT scanner using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:813-821.
8. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Martin A. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:603-607.
9. Beyer T, Antoch G, Muller S, et al. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl 1):25S-35S.
10. Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1137-1143.
11. Belakhlef A, Church C, Fraser R, Lakhanpal S. Sensitivity and daily quality control of a mobile PET/CT scanner operating in 3-dimensional mode. J Nucl Med Technol. 2007;35:229-231.