UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the calibration of PET scanners and their cross calibration to peripheral devices in a multicenter study. METHODS: Twenty-three dedicated PET scanners were investigated, applying standardized protocols. To ensure exact determination of the activity used, dose calibrators were checked using (68)Ge standards. RESULTS: Nine of 19 and 11 of 20 scanners displayed an error of <5% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional acquisition modes, respectively. Four and 5 scanners displayed an error of 10% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional modes, respectively. All other scanners yielded errors of 5% to <10%. Because of hardware and software problems, the measurements performed on 1 scanner could not be adequately analyzed. CONCLUSION: An investigation of calibration is mandatory. Especially for quantitative analyses in clinical multicenter trials, identification of potentially miscalibrated scanners is necessary.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the calibration of PET scanners and their cross calibration to peripheral devices in a multicenter study. METHODS: Twenty-three dedicated PET scanners were investigated, applying standardized protocols. To ensure exact determination of the activity used, dose calibrators were checked using (68)Ge standards. RESULTS: Nine of 19 and 11 of 20 scanners displayed an error of <5% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional acquisition modes, respectively. Four and 5 scanners displayed an error of 10% in 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional modes, respectively. All other scanners yielded errors of 5% to <10%. Because of hardware and software problems, the measurements performed on 1 scanner could not be adequately analyzed. CONCLUSION: An investigation of calibration is mandatory. Especially for quantitative analyses in clinical multicenter trials, identification of potentially miscalibrated scanners is necessary.
Authors: John Caddell Dickson; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Terez Sera; Robin de Nijs; Jan Booij; Maria Claudia Bagnara; Anita Seese; Pierre Malick Koulibaly; Umit Ozgur Akdemir; Cathrine Jonsson; Michel Koole; Maria Raith; Markus Nowak Lonsdale; Jean George; Felicia Zito; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dirk Hellwig; Andreas Gröschel; Thomas P Graeter; Anne P Hellwig; Ursula Nestle; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Gerhard W Sybrecht; Carl-Martin Kirsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Joel Karp; Martin A Lodge; Charles Laymon; Eduardo G Moros; Mikalai Budzevich; Sadek Nehmeh; Joshua Scheuermann; John Sunderland; Jun Zhang; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: Catherine M Lockhart; Lawrence R MacDonald; Adam M Alessio; Wendy A McDougald; Robert K Doot; Paul E Kinahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 10.057