Development and validation of a variance model for dynamic PET: Uses in fitting kinetic data and optimizing the injected activity

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 55, Issue 22, 2010, Pages 6655-6672

  Walker, M D ^a,b   Matthews, J C ^a   Asselin, M C ^a   Watson, C C ^c   Saleem, A ^a   Dickinson, C ^a   Charnley, N ^a   Julyan, P J ^a,d   Price, P M ^a   Jones, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

^d CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL PARAMETER; CANCER PATIENTS; DATA VARIANCE; DIFFERENT SIZES; DYNAMIC PET; ESTIMATE PRECISION; KINETIC DATA; NEW MODEL; PARAMETER ESTIMATE; PATIENT DATA; PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; PET SCAN; REGIONS OF INTEREST; SIEMENS; STANDARD ERRORS; TIME FRAME; VARIANCE MODELS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORRELATION METHODS; HOSPITAL DATA PROCESSING; OPTIMIZATION; SCANNING;

ESTIMATION;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INJECTION; KINETICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; VALIDATION STUDY;

HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INJECTIONS; KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 78649991984     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/22/005     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Accorsi R, Karp J S and Surti S 2010 Improved dose regimen in pediatric PET J. Nucl. Med. 51 293-300
2. Alpert N M, Chesler D A, Correia J A, Ackerman R H, Chang J Y, Finklestein S, Davis S M, Brownell G L and Taveras J M 1982 Estimation of the local statistical noise in emission computed tomography IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 1 142-6
3. Badawi R D, Marsden P K, Cronin B F, Sutcliffe J L and Maisey M N 1996 Optimization of noise-equivalent count rates in 3D PET Phys. Med. Biol. 41 1755-76
4. Bevington P R and Robinson D K 1992 Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences 2nd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill)
5. Brambilla M, Secco C, Dominietto M, Matheoud R, Sacchetti G and Inglese E 2005 Performance characteristics obtained for a new3-dimensional lutetium oxyorthosilicate-basedwhole-body PET/CT scannerwith theNational Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard J. Nucl. Med. 46 2083-91
6. Carson R E, Yan Y, Daube-WitherspoonME, Freedman N, Bacharach S L and Herscovitch P 1993 An approximation formula for the variance of PET region-of-interest values IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 12 240-50
7. Danna M, LecchiM, Bettinardi V, Gilardi M, Stearns C, Lucignani G and Fazio F 2006 Generation of the acquisitionspecific NEC (AS-nEC) curves to optimize the injected dose in 3D 18F-FDG whole body PET studies IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 86-92
8. Farquhar T H, Chatziioannou A and Cherry S R 1998 An evaluation of exact and approximate 3-D reconstruction algorithms for a high-resolution, small-animal PET scanner IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17 1073-80
9. Haynor D R and Woods S D 1989 Resampling estimates of precision in emission tomography IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 8 337-43
10. Huesman R H 1984 A new fast algorithm for the evaluation of regions of interest and statistical uncertainty in computed tomography Phys. Med. Biol. 29 543-52
11. 15O autoradiography and positron emission tomography, with respect to the dispersion of the input function J. Cerebral Blood Flow Metabolism 6 536-45
12. Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan P E, Ferreira N, Bendriem B and Trébossen R 2002 Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET J. Nucl. Med. 43 1268-78
13. Li H J and Votaw J R 1998 Optimization of PET activation studies based on the SNR measured in the 3-d Hoffman brain phantom IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17 596-605
14. 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose J. Nucl. Med. 50 844-8
15. Pajevic S, Daube-Witherspoon M E, Bacharach S L and Carson R E 1998 Noise characteristics of 3-d and 2-d PET images IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17 9-23
16. Ranicar A S, Williams C W, Schnorr L, Clark J C, Rhodes C G, Bloomfield P M and Jones T 1991 The online monitoring of continuously withdrawn arterial blood during PET studies using a single BGO/photomultiplier assembly and nonstick tubing Med. Prog. through Technol. 17 259-64
17. Riddell C, Carson R E, Carrasquillo J A, Libutti S K, Danforth D N, Whatley M and Bacharach S L 2001 Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment J. Nucl. Med. 42 1316-23
18. Sadato N, Carson R E, Daube-Witherspoon M E, Campbell G, Hallett M and Herscovitch P 1997 Optimization of noninvasive activation studies with 15O-Water and three-dimensional positron emission tomography J. Cerebral Blood Flow Metabolism 17 732-9
19. Strother S C, Casey M E and Hoffman E J 1990 Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalents counts IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 37 783-8
20. Walker M D, Matthews J C, Asselin M C, Saleem A, Dickinson C, Charnley N, Julyan P J, Price P M and Jones T 2009 Optimization of the injected activity in dynamic 3D PET: a generalized approach using patient-specific NECs as demonstrated by a series of 15O-H2O scans J. Nucl. Med. 50 1409-17
21. 2O PET scans Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record 2008. NSS'08. IEEE (Dresden, Germany, 19-25 Oct.) pp 4464-71
22. Watson C C 2004 Count rate dependence of local signal-to-noise ratio in positron emission tomography IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 51 2670-80
23. Watson C C, Casey M E, Bendriem B, Carney J P, Townsend D W, Eberl S, Meikle S and DiFilippo F P 2005 Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans J. Nucl. Med. 46 1825-34