Cargando…
Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of positron emission tomography (PET) component of PET/computed tomography (CT) with new emerging PET/magnetic resonance (MR) of the same vendor. METHODS: According to National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU2-07, five se...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Galenos Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29393048 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/mirt.97659 |
_version_ | 1783296541850599424 |
---|---|
author | Demir, Mustafa Toklu, Türkay Abuqbeitah, Mohammad Çetin, Hüseyin Sezgin, H. Sezer Yeyin, Nami Sönmezoğlu, Kerim |
author_facet | Demir, Mustafa Toklu, Türkay Abuqbeitah, Mohammad Çetin, Hüseyin Sezgin, H. Sezer Yeyin, Nami Sönmezoğlu, Kerim |
author_sort | Demir, Mustafa |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of positron emission tomography (PET) component of PET/computed tomography (CT) with new emerging PET/magnetic resonance (MR) of the same vendor. METHODS: According to National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU2-07, five separate experimental tests were performed to evaluate the performance of PET scanner of General Electric GE company; SIGNATM model PET/MR and GE Discovery 710 model PET/CT. The main investigated aspects were spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count rate performance, image quality, count loss and random events correction accuracy. RESULTS: The findings of this study demonstrated superior sensitivity (~ 4 folds) of PET scanner in PET/MR compared to PET/CT system. Image quality test exhibited higher contrast in PET/MR (~ 9%) compared with PET/CT. The scatter fraction of PET/MR was 43.4% at noise equivalent count rate (NECR) peak of 218 kcps and the corresponding activity concentration was 17.7 kBq/cc. Whereas the scatter fraction of PET/CT was found as 39.2% at NECR peak of 72 kcps and activity concentration of 24.3 kBq/cc. The percentage error of the random event correction accuracy was 3.4% and 3.1% in PET/MR and PET/CT, respectively. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that PET/MR system is about 4 times more sensitive than PET/CT, and the contrast of hot lesions in PET/MR was ~ 9% higher than PET/CT. These outcomes also emphasize the possibility to achieve excellent clinical PET images with low administered dose and/or a short acquisition time in PET/MR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5790967 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Galenos Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57909672018-02-07 Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests Demir, Mustafa Toklu, Türkay Abuqbeitah, Mohammad Çetin, Hüseyin Sezgin, H. Sezer Yeyin, Nami Sönmezoğlu, Kerim Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of positron emission tomography (PET) component of PET/computed tomography (CT) with new emerging PET/magnetic resonance (MR) of the same vendor. METHODS: According to National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU2-07, five separate experimental tests were performed to evaluate the performance of PET scanner of General Electric GE company; SIGNATM model PET/MR and GE Discovery 710 model PET/CT. The main investigated aspects were spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count rate performance, image quality, count loss and random events correction accuracy. RESULTS: The findings of this study demonstrated superior sensitivity (~ 4 folds) of PET scanner in PET/MR compared to PET/CT system. Image quality test exhibited higher contrast in PET/MR (~ 9%) compared with PET/CT. The scatter fraction of PET/MR was 43.4% at noise equivalent count rate (NECR) peak of 218 kcps and the corresponding activity concentration was 17.7 kBq/cc. Whereas the scatter fraction of PET/CT was found as 39.2% at NECR peak of 72 kcps and activity concentration of 24.3 kBq/cc. The percentage error of the random event correction accuracy was 3.4% and 3.1% in PET/MR and PET/CT, respectively. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that PET/MR system is about 4 times more sensitive than PET/CT, and the contrast of hot lesions in PET/MR was ~ 9% higher than PET/CT. These outcomes also emphasize the possibility to achieve excellent clinical PET images with low administered dose and/or a short acquisition time in PET/MR. Galenos Publishing 2018-02 2018-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5790967/ /pubmed/29393048 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/mirt.97659 Text en ©Copyright 2017 by Turkish Society of Nuclear Medicine / Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy published by Galenos Yayınevi. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Demir, Mustafa Toklu, Türkay Abuqbeitah, Mohammad Çetin, Hüseyin Sezgin, H. Sezer Yeyin, Nami Sönmezoğlu, Kerim Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title | Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title_full | Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title_short | Evaluation of PET Scanner Performance in PET/MR and PET/CT Systems: NEMA Tests |
title_sort | evaluation of pet scanner performance in pet/mr and pet/ct systems: nema tests |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29393048 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/mirt.97659 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT demirmustafa evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT tokluturkay evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT abuqbeitahmohammad evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT cetinhuseyin evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT sezginhsezer evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT yeyinnami evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests AT sonmezoglukerim evaluationofpetscannerperformanceinpetmrandpetctsystemsnematests |