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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Demir, Mustafa, Toklu, Türkay, Abuqbeitah, Mohammad, Çetin, Hüseyin, Sezgin, H. Sezer, Yeyin, Nami, Sönmezoğlu, Kerim
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