Literature DB >> 12072842

Design considerations for PET scanners.

G Muehllrhner1, J S Karp, S Surti.   

Abstract

In 2-D PET scanners employing septa, scattered radiation is reduced by the septa, placing less importance on good energy resolution. Additionally, the reduced sensitivity in 2-D limits the maximum countrates encountered in clinical FDG studies. In contrast, 3-D PET scanners rely on good energy resolution to reduce the scattered radiation and also must deal with countrates, which are typically 5 times higher than in 2-D mode. To achieve good energy resolution, 3 factors must be considered: 1) choice of a scintillator with good intrinsic energy resolution, 2) choice of a crystal dimension which transmits a uniform amount of light to the PMT in order to avoid light loss along the length of the crystal and 3) choice of a crystal-to-PMT coupling which collects a uniform amount of light from all crystals. As PET scanners are being designed using new, faster scintillators for 3-D imaging, the appropriate trade-off between energy resolution and countrate capability must be found to give the best overall system performance. An example of a fully 3-D PET scanner is the Allegro (ADAC Laboratories), which uses GSO as the detector material. Given the right choice of material and design parameters, good quality, high contrast images can be obtained in 3-D in a relatively short time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12072842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Nucl Med        ISSN: 1125-0135


  6 in total

Review 1.  From PET detectors to PET scanners.

Authors:  John L Humm; Anatoly Rosenfeld; Alberto Del Guerra
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-10-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Update on latest advances in time-of-flight PET.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 2.685

3.  Impact of detector design on imaging performance of a long axial field-of-view, whole-body PET scanner.

Authors:  S Surti; J S Karp
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter Lind; Isabel Igerc; Thomas Beyer; Peter Reinprecht; Klaus Hausegger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Advances in time-of-flight PET.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 2.685

6.  PET probe-guided surgery: applications and clinical protocol.

Authors:  Seza A Gulec; Erica Hoenie; Richard Hostetter; Douglas Schwartzentruber
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 2.754

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.