UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to measure the errors introduced by regular calibration of PET/CT scanners and to minimize the effect of calibration error on standardized uptake value measurements. METHODS: Global calibration factors from 2 PET/CT scanners were recorded for 3.5 and 1.8 y, comparing manufacturer-recommended protocols with modified protocols to evaluate error contributions due to operator-influenced procedures. Dose calibrator measurements were evaluated using National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable sources. RESULTS: Dose calibrator variability was less than 1%, although there was a consistent bias. Global scaling variability was reduced from 6% to 4% for scanner 1 and from 11% to 4% for scanner 2 when quality assurance and quality control procedures were applied to the calibration protocol. When calibrations were done using a (68)Ge/(68)Ga phantom, the variability for both scanners was reduced to approximately 3%. CONCLUSION: Applying quality assurance and quality control procedures to scanner calibration reduces variability, but there is a still a residual longitudinal scanner variability of 3%-4%. The procedures proposed here reduce the impact of operator error on scanner calibration and thereby minimize longitudinal variability in standardized uptake value measurements.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to measure the errors introduced by regular calibration of PET/CT scanners and to minimize the effect of calibration error on standardized uptake value measurements. METHODS: Global calibration factors from 2 PET/CT scanners were recorded for 3.5 and 1.8 y, comparing manufacturer-recommended protocols with modified protocols to evaluate error contributions due to operator-influenced procedures. Dose calibrator measurements were evaluated using National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable sources. RESULTS: Dose calibrator variability was less than 1%, although there was a consistent bias. Global scaling variability was reduced from 6% to 4% for scanner 1 and from 11% to 4% for scanner 2 when quality assurance and quality control procedures were applied to the calibration protocol. When calibrations were done using a (68)Ge/(68)Ga phantom, the variability for both scanners was reduced to approximately 3%. CONCLUSION: Applying quality assurance and quality control procedures to scanner calibration reduces variability, but there is a still a residual longitudinal scanner variability of 3%-4%. The procedures proposed here reduce the impact of operator error on scanner calibration and thereby minimize longitudinal variability in standardized uptake value measurements.
Authors: Adriaan A Lammertsma; Corneline J Hoekstra; Giuseppe Giaccone; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gary J Kelloff; John M Hoffman; Bruce Johnson; Howard I Scher; Barry A Siegel; Edward Y Cheng; Bruce D Cheson; Joyce O'shaughnessy; Kathryn Z Guyton; David A Mankoff; Lalitha Shankar; Steven M Larson; Caroline C Sigman; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Karen P Chu; James D Murphy; Trang H La; Trevor E Krakow; Andrei Iagaru; Edward E Graves; Annie Hsu; Peter G Maxim; Billy Loo; Daniel T Chang; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Musib Siddique; Glen M Blake; Michelle L Frost; Amelia E B Moore; Tanuj Puri; Paul K Marsden; Ignac Fogelman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kristen A Wangerin; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Hannah M Linden; Alena Novakova; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Darrin Byrd; Brian Elston; Keith C Allberg; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Robert L Harrison; Brian F Elston; Robert K Doot; Thomas K Lewellen; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.794