PubMed · 12387841
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J W Evans, A M Peters. 2002. Gamma camera imaging in malignancy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00412-4
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The accuracy in determination of organ activity of (99m)Tc was investigated, with activity estimated from gamma camera images of phantoms, using the conjugate view method. The accuracy depends on several parameters such as the choice of background correction method, the accuracy in determination of the effective attenuation coefficient and the thickness of the body and organs and on the determination of the gamma camera sensitivity. The background correction method has a major influence on the quantification of the activity. Methods which take the volume of the source organ into consideration are recommended. The discrepancy in the determined organ activity varied between an underestimation of 26% and an overestimation of 16% in the MIRD phantom, depending on which organ was studied and on the correction method used. To correct for absorption and scattering, an effective attenuation coefficient was used. A theoretical analysis showed that a change in the effective attenuation coefficient of 0.01 cm(-1) resulted in a 15% change in the calculated activity. Also the thickness of the body and the organ of interest influences the calculated activity. A 2 cm deviation in the body thickness causes a deviation of approximately 10% in the calculated activity. The quantification is improved if the attenuation coefficient is determined by transmission measurements.
AIM AND METHODS: We assessed the performance evaluation of a dual-head coincidence gamma camera (Millennium VG, General Electric, Milwaukee, USA) as a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner based on the measurement indicator for performance evaluation of PET device. RESULTS: The axial spatial resolution was 4.98 mm FWHM at the center of the field of view. The true high count-rate characteristic curve was relatively straight within the range 0-0.2 microCi/ml. The relative recovery coefficient was 0.1 with a diameter of 10 mm and 0.39 with a diameter of 20 mm. CONCLUSION: In this study, we had to make a some change in the protocols described in the measurement indicator for performance evaluation of PET devices.
UNLABELLED: The NU 2-1994 standard document for PET performance measurements has recently been updated. The updated document, NU 2-2001, includes revised measurements for spatial resolution, intrinsic scatter fraction, sensitivity, counting rate performance, and accuracy of count loss and randoms corrections. The revised measurements are designed to allow testing of dedicated PET systems in both 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional modes as well as coincidence gamma cameras, conditions not considered in the original NU 2-1994 standard. In addition, the updated measurements strive toward being more representative of clinical studies, in particular, whole-body imaging. METHODS: Performance measurements following the NU 2-1994 and NU 2-2001 standards were performed on several different PET scanners. Differences between the procedures and resulting performance characteristics, as well as the rationale for these changes, were noted. RESULTS: Spatial resolution is measured with a point source in all 3 directions, rather than a line source, as specified previously. For the measurements of intrinsic scatter fraction, sensitivity, and counting rate performance, a 70-cm line source is now specified, instead of a 19-cm-long cylindric phantom. The longer configuration permits measurement of these performance characteristics over the entire axial field of view of all current PET scanners and incorporates the effects of activity outside the scanner. A measurement of image quality has been added in an effort to measure overall image quality under clinically realistic conditions. This measurement replaces the individual measurements of uniformity and of the accuracy of corrections for attenuation and scatter. CONCLUSION: The changes from the NU 2-1994 standard to the NU 2-2001 standard strive toward establishing relevance with clinical studies. The tests in the updated standard also are, in general, simpler and less time-consuming to perform than those in the NU 2-1994 standard.