Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1401-1408

  Bowen, Spencer L ^a   Wu, Yibao ^a   Chaudhari, Abhijit J ^a   Fu, Lin ^a   Packard, Nathan J ^b   Burkett, George W ^b   Yang, Kai ^b   Lindfors, Karen K ^b   Shelton, David K ^b   Hagge, Rosalie ^b   Borowsky, Alexander D ^b   Martinez, Steve R ^c   Qi, Jinyi ^a   Boone, John M ^b   Cherry, Simon R ^a   Badawi, Ramsey D ^b  

^a Davis   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG; Breast cancer; Dedicated; PET CT; Positron emission mammography

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; LUTETIUM; LUTETIUM OXYORTHOSILICATE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTRATION;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 69449092739     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064428     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5366-5372. (Pubitemid 46623167)
2. Mahner S, Schirrmacher S, Brenner W, et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1249-1254. (Pubitemid 351911953)
3. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology. 2007;242:360-385.
4. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos K, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:254-262.
5. Radan L, Ben-Haim S, Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Israel O. The role of FDG-PET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer. Cancer. 2006;107:2545-2551. (Pubitemid 44845606)
6. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495-3502. (Pubitemid 30783328)
7. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang HM, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:267-274. (Pubitemid 44195596)
8. Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234:527-534.
9. Abreu MC, Aguiar JD, Almeida FG, et al. Design and evaluation of the Clear-PEM scanner for positron emission mammography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53:71-77.
10. Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ, Loutfi A, Lisbona R, Gagnon JH. Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1851-1858. (Pubitemid 30829057)
11. Freifelder R, Cardi C, Grigoras I, Saffer JR, Karp JS. First results of a dedicated breast PET imager, BPET, using NaI(Tl) curve plate detectors. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2001;3:1241-1245. (Pubitemid 34911194)
12. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:309-323. (Pubitemid 43989975)
13. Orlov SS. Theory of 3-dimensional reconstruction.1. Conditions for a full set of projections. Kristallografiya. 1975;20:511-515.
14. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, et al. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:637-653.
15. Wu Y, Bowen SL, Yang K, et al. PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:4273-4287.
16. Wang GC, Huber JS, Moses WW, Qi J, Choong WS. Characterization of the LBNL PEM camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53:1129-1135.
17. Tai YC, Wu H, Pal D, O'Sullivan JA. Virtual-pinhole PET. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:471-479.
18. Li HD, Wong WH, Baghaei H, et al. The engineering and initial results of a transformable low-cost high-resolution PET camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54:1583-1588. (Pubitemid 47599129)
19. Kwan ALC, Boone JM, Yang K, Huang SY. Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner. Med Phys. 2007;34:275-281. (Pubitemid 46035249)
20. Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan ALC, Miller DF. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2008;246:725-733.
21. Doshi NK, Shao YP, Silverman RW, Cherry SR. Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging. Med Phys. 2000;27:1535-1543. (Pubitemid 30624248)
22. Boone JM, Shah N, Nelson TR. A comprehensive analysis of DgN(CT) coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography. Med Phys. 2004;31:226-235. (Pubitemid 38235392)
23. Boone JM, Kwan ALC, Seibert JA, Shah N, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT. Med Phys. 2005;32:3767-3776.
24. Qi J, Leahy RM, Cherry SR, Chatziioannou A, Farquhar TH. High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:1001-1013. (Pubitemid 28168428)
25. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1984;1:612-619.
26. Studholme C, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ. An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment. Pattern Recognit. 1999;32:71-86.
27. Rorden C, Brett M. Stereotaxic display of brain lesions. Behav Neurol. 2000;12:191-200.
28. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): Mammography. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
29. Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;37:783-788.
30. Watson CC, Casey ME, Bendriem B, et al. Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1825-1834. (Pubitemid 46196644)
31. Jan S, Santin G, Strul D, et al. GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:4543-4561. (Pubitemid 39378244)
32. Qi J, Huesman RH. Scatter correction for positron emission mammography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:2759-2771. (Pubitemid 34905392)
33. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA. 2004;291:442-450. (Pubitemid 38129748)
34. Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA, Kohlmyer S, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1734-1742. (Pubitemid 47618484)
35. McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys. 1999;26:2223-2230.
36. Zhang J, Olcott PD, Chinn G, Foudray AMK, Levin CS. Study of the performance of a novel 1 mm resolution dual-panel PET camera design dedicated to breast cancer imaging using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys. 2007;34:689-702. (Pubitemid 46185149)
37. Boone JM, Kwan ALC, Yang K, Burkett GW, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR. Computed tomography for imaging the breast. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2006;11:103-111.