Literature DB >> 12411558

Comparative evaluation of lesion detectability for 6 PET imaging platforms using a highly reproducible whole-body phantom with (22)Na lesions and localization ROC analysis.

Dan J Kadrmas1, Paul E Christian.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The lesion detectability performance of 6 PET imaging platforms has been compared using a highly reproducible whole-body phantom and localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis.
METHODS: A realistic whole-body phantom consisting of brain, thorax with lungs and liver, and pelvis with bladder was assembled and outfitted with 27 semipermanent (22)Na lesions of various sizes and activity concentrations. The background compartments were reproducibly filled with (18)F solutions. The phantom was imaged under the condition of equal emission scan time on 7 PET platforms: Advance, HR+, HR961, C-PET, IRIX, MCD, and AXIS. Imaging data were processed using manufacturer-supplied software and defaults, and LROC evaluation was performed using 11 human observers.
RESULTS: Near-nominal counting rates were obtained for the NaI systems, and the bismuth germanate (BGO) systems were operated well below nominal counting rates. The BGO systems provided the highest lesion detection performance, followed by the large-area dedicated NaI system, and hybrid PET gamma cameras. Lesion detectability was highly dependent on lesion size, with all systems exhibiting similar performance for 16-mm lesions but differentiated performance for lesions < or =12 mm.
CONCLUSION: Reconstruction methodology can have a significant effect on lesion detectability. PET lesion detectability performance is correlated with system cost and imaging characteristics. For a particular imaging task, care should be taken to ensure that the scanner being used is appropriate and that the scan time is adjusted accordingly to ensure good lesion detectability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12411558

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  15 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

2.  The need for independent physics advice.

Authors:  Helmar Bergmann
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Effect of Using 2mm Voxels on Observer Performance for PET Lesion Detection.

Authors:  A Michael Morey; Frédéric Noo; Dan J Kadrmas
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 1.679

4.  Development and validation of the Lesion Synthesis Toolbox and the Perception Study Tool for quantifying observer limits of detection of lesions in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Hanif Gabrani-Juma; Zamzam Al Bimani; Lionel S Zuckier; Ran Klein
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-04-21

5.  A fillable micro-hollow sphere lesion detection phantom using superposition.

Authors:  Frank P Difilippo; Sven L Gallo; Ryan S Klatte; Sagar Patel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Effect of Scan Time on Oncologic Lesion Detection in Whole-Body PET.

Authors:  Dan J Kadrmas; M Bugrahan Oktay; Michael E Casey; James J Hamill
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.679

7.  A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data.

Authors:  Andrea Schaefer; Stephanie Kremp; Dirk Hellwig; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Ursula Nestle
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Experimental comparison of lesion detectability for four fully-3D PET reconstruction schemes.

Authors:  Dan J Kadrmas; Michael E Casey; Noel F Black; James J Hamill; Vladimir Y Panin; Maurizio Conti
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008-10-03       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection.

Authors:  Dan J Kadrmas; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Bjoern W Jakoby; Cristina Lois; David W Townsend
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Optimisation of the OS-EM algorithm and comparison with FBP for image reconstruction on a dual-head camera: a phantom and a clinical 18F-FDG study.

Authors:  Fabrice Gutman; Isabelle Gardin; Nicolas Delahaye; Hervé Rakotonirina; Anne Hitzel; Alain Manrique; Dominique Le Guludec; Pierre Véra
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-09-23       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.