Improvement in clinical evaluation of PET/CT images with high resolution algorithms

Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 201-206

  Orlandini, L C ^a   Betti, M ^a   Fulcheri, C ^a   Dona, M ^b   Fisicaro, D ^b   Castagnoli, A ^a  

^a Centro Oncologico Fiorentino   (Italy)

^b General Hospital of Prato   (Italy)

Author keywords

Algorithms; Evaluation studies as topic; Positron emission tomography; Tomography; X ray computed

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; PET SCANNER; STANDARD; TUMOR VOLUME;

ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84882323227     PISSN: 18244785     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology imaging network experience. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1187-93.
2. Saha GB. Basics of PET imaging: physics, chemistry, and regulations, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0805-6-6, Springer Science + Business Media LLC2010.
3. Défrise M, Kinahan OE, Townsend DW, Michel C, Sibomana M, Newport DF. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1997;16:145-58.
4. Bataille F, Michel C, Jones JP, Sibomana M, Janeiro L, Trebossen R. Osem 3D reconstruction stretegies for the ECAT HRRT. IEEE NSS 2004;6:3492-6.
5. Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25:907-21.
6. Knausl B, Hirti A, Dobrozemsky G, Bergmann H, Kletter K, Dud-czak R et al. PET based volume segmentation with emphasis on the iterative Truex algorithm. Medizinische Physik; January 2011.
7. Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:1453-73.
8. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standard uptake values in multi center trials. Effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2007;34:392-404.
9. Cheebsumon, Patsuree;Yaqub, Maqsood, Velden. Floris H.P, Hoekstra, Otto S. Lammertsma, Adriaan A., Boellaard, Ronald. Impact of 18F-FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:2136-44.
10. Joseph A, Thie. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods and implication for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1431-4.
11. Takashashi Y, Oriuchi N, Otake H, Endo K, Murase K. Variability of lesion detectability and standardize uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:543-8.
12. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48:932-45.