OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and reliability of 2 well counter methods for measuring the activity concentration of (18)F-FDG in blood samples. METHODS: Three to 5 blood samples from 154 patient studies were weighed and measured in a well counter. The (18)F-FDG activity concentration was derived using, first, a direct calibration factor to convert measured well counter readings into activity concentration and, second, a comparison of measured counts with those of a specified standard solution. RESULTS: The ratio between the activity concentration results of the 2 methods was 0.996 +/- 0.033, indicating that the methods provided equal results. CONCLUSION: Because the standard solution method is more prone to human error, less reproducible, and more labor intensive, preference should be given to the direct calibration method.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and reliability of 2 well counter methods for measuring the activity concentration of (18)F-FDG in blood samples. METHODS: Three to 5 blood samples from 154 patient studies were weighed and measured in a well counter. The (18)F-FDG activity concentration was derived using, first, a direct calibration factor to convert measured well counter readings into activity concentration and, second, a comparison of measured counts with those of a specified standard solution. RESULTS: The ratio between the activity concentration results of the 2 methods was 0.996 +/- 0.033, indicating that the methods provided equal results. CONCLUSION: Because the standard solution method is more prone to human error, less reproducible, and more labor intensive, preference should be given to the direct calibration method.
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Jan Pruim; Wim Oyen; Otto Hoekstra; Anne Paans; Eric Visser; Jan van Lanschot; Gerrit Sloof; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Todd E Peterson; Richard G Abramson; David Izquierdo-Garcia; David Garcia-Izquierdo; Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; Nkiruka C Atuegwu; Ciprian Catana; H Charles Manning; Zahi A Fayad; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236