UNLABELLED: We evaluated a commercial positron emission mammography (PEM) camera, the PEM Flex Solo II. This system comprises two 6 x 16.4 cm detectors that scan together covering up to a 24 x 16.4 cm field of view (FOV). There are no specific standards for testing this detector configuration. We performed several tests important to breast imaging, and we propose tests that should be included in standardized testing of PEM systems. METHODS: We measured spatial resolution, uniformity, counting- rate linearity, recovery coefficients, and quantification accuracy using the system's software. Image linearity and coefficient of variation at the edge of the FOV were also characterized. Anecdotal examples of clinical patient data are presented. RESULTS: The spatial resolution was 2.4 mm in full width at half maximum for image planes parallel to the detector faces. The background variability was approximately 5%, and quantification accuracy and recovery coefficients varied within the FOV. Positioning linearity began at approximately 13 mm from the edge of the detector housing. The coefficient of variation was significantly higher close to the edge of the FOV because of limited sensitivity in these image planes. CONCLUSION: A reconstructed spatial resolution of 2.4 mm represented a significant improvement over conventional whole-body PET scanners and should reduce the lower threshold on lesion size and tracer uptake for detection in the breast. Limited-angle tomography and a lack of data corrections result in spatially variable quantitative results. PEM acquisition geometry limits sampling statistics at the chest-wall edge of the camera, resulting in high variance in that portion of the image. Example patient images demonstrate that lesions can be detected at the chest-wall edge despite variance artifacts, and fine structure is visualized routinely throughout the FOV in the focal plane. The PEM Flex camera should enable the functional imaging of breast cancer earlier in the disease process than whole-body PET.
UNLABELLED: We evaluated a commercial positron emission mammography (PEM) camera, the PEM Flex Solo II. This system comprises two 6 x 16.4 cm detectors that scan together covering up to a 24 x 16.4 cm field of view (FOV). There are no specific standards for testing this detector configuration. We performed several tests important to breast imaging, and we propose tests that should be included in standardized testing of PEM systems. METHODS: We measured spatial resolution, uniformity, counting- rate linearity, recovery coefficients, and quantification accuracy using the system's software. Image linearity and coefficient of variation at the edge of the FOV were also characterized. Anecdotal examples of clinical patient data are presented. RESULTS: The spatial resolution was 2.4 mm in full width at half maximum for image planes parallel to the detector faces. The background variability was approximately 5%, and quantification accuracy and recovery coefficients varied within the FOV. Positioning linearity began at approximately 13 mm from the edge of the detector housing. The coefficient of variation was significantly higher close to the edge of the FOV because of limited sensitivity in these image planes. CONCLUSION: A reconstructed spatial resolution of 2.4 mm represented a significant improvement over conventional whole-body PET scanners and should reduce the lower threshold on lesion size and tracer uptake for detection in the breast. Limited-angle tomography and a lack of data corrections result in spatially variable quantitative results. PEM acquisition geometry limits sampling statistics at the chest-wall edge of the camera, resulting in high variance in that portion of the image. Example patient images demonstrate that lesions can be detected at the chest-wall edge despite variance artifacts, and fine structure is visualized routinely throughout the FOV in the focal plane. The PEM Flex camera should enable the functional imaging of breast cancer earlier in the disease process than whole-body PET.
Authors: Charles C Watson; Michael E Casey; Lars Eriksson; Tim Mulnix; Doug Adams; Bernard Bendriem Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Stan Majewski; Mark F Smith; James Proffitt; William Hammond; Amarnath Srinivasan; John McKisson; Vladimir Popov; Andrew Weisenberger; Clifford O Judy; Brian Kross; Srikanth Ramasubramanian; Larry E Banta; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle Champley Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: N Avril; C A Rosé; M Schelling; J Dose; W Kuhn; S Bense; W Weber; S Ziegler; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward A Levine; Rita I Freimanis; Nancy D Perrier; Kathryn Morton; Nadia M Lesko; Simon Bergman; Kim R Geisinger; Rodney C Williams; Connie Sharpe; Valera Zavarzin; Irving N Weinberg; Pavel Y Stepanov; David Beylin; Kathryn Lauckner; Mohan Doss; Judy Lovelace; Lee P Adler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Nicholas A Shkumat; Adam Springer; Christopher M Walker; Eric M Rohren; Wei T Yang; Beatriz E Adrada; Elsa Arribas; Selin Carkaci; Hubert H Chuang; Lumarie Santiago; Osama R Mawlawi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aswin John Mathews; Ke Li; Sergey Komarov; Qiang Wang; Bosky Ravindranath; Joseph A O'Sullivan; Yuan-Chuan Tai Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kyle M Champley; Lawrence R MacDonald; Thomas K Lewellen; Robert S Miyaoka; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Abhijit J Chaudhari; Andrea Ferrero; Felipe Godinez; Kai Yang; David K Shelton; John C Hunter; Stanley M Naguwa; John M Boone; Siba P Raychaudhuri; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 3.039