INTRODUCTION: The goal of this initial clinical study was to test a new positron emission/tomography imager and biopsy system (PEM/PET) in a small group of selected subjects to assess its clinical imaging capabilities. Specifically, the main task of this study is to determine whether the new system can successfully be used to produce images of known breast cancer and compare them to those acquired by standard techniques. METHODS: The PEM/PET system consists of two pairs of rotating radiation detectors located beneath a patient table. The scanner has a spatial resolution of ∼2 mm in all three dimensions. The subjects consisted of five patients diagnosed with locally advanced breast cancer ranging in age from 40 to 55 years old scheduled for pre-treatment, conventional whole body PET imaging with F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). The primary lesions were at least 2 cm in diameter. RESULTS: The images from the PEM/PET system demonstrated that this system is capable of identifying some lesions not visible in standard mammograms. Furthermore, while the relatively large lesions imaged in this study where all visualised by a standard whole body PET/CT scanner, some of the morphology of the tumours (ductal infiltration, for example) was better defined with the PEM/PET system. Significantly, these images were obtained immediately following a standard whole body PET scan. CONCLUSIONS: The initial testing of the new PEM/PET system demonstrated that the new system is capable of producing good quality breast-PET images compared standard methods.
INTRODUCTION: The goal of this initial clinical study was to test a new positron emission/tomography imager and biopsy system (PEM/PET) in a small group of selected subjects to assess its clinical imaging capabilities. Specifically, the main task of this study is to determine whether the new system can successfully be used to produce images of known breast cancer and compare them to those acquired by standard techniques. METHODS: The PEM/PET system consists of two pairs of rotating radiation detectors located beneath a patient table. The scanner has a spatial resolution of ∼2 mm in all three dimensions. The subjects consisted of five patients diagnosed with locally advanced breast cancer ranging in age from 40 to 55 years old scheduled for pre-treatment, conventional whole body PET imaging with F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). The primary lesions were at least 2 cm in diameter. RESULTS: The images from the PEM/PET system demonstrated that this system is capable of identifying some lesions not visible in standard mammograms. Furthermore, while the relatively large lesions imaged in this study where all visualised by a standard whole body PET/CT scanner, some of the morphology of the tumours (ductal infiltration, for example) was better defined with the PEM/PET system. Significantly, these images were obtained immediately following a standard whole body PET scan. CONCLUSIONS: The initial testing of the new PEM/PET system demonstrated that the new system is capable of producing good quality breast-PET images compared standard methods.
Authors: Marco Brambilla; Chiara Secco; Marco Dominietto; Roberta Matheoud; Gianmauro Sacchetti; Eugenio Inglese Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M C Abreu; P Almeida; F Balau; N C Ferreira; S Fetal; F Fraga; M Martins; N Matela; R Moura; C Ortigão; L Peralta; P Rato; R Ribeiro; P Rodrigues; A I Santos; A Trindade; J Varela Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2005 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rachel F Brem; Ivan Petrovitch; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Heather Young; Christine Teal; Tricia Kelly Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Will Van Kampen; Alexander V Stolin; Wenbo Gong; Gangadhar Jaliparthi; Peter F Martone; Mark F Smith; David Sarment; Neal H Clinthorne; Mark Perna Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrea Ferrero; Qiyu Peng; George W Burkett; Buddika Sumanasena; William W Moses; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2015-06-09
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Keith Vaigneur; Alexander V Stolin; Gangadhar Jaliparthi Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: B B Koolen; W V Vogel; M J T F D Vrancken Peeters; C E Loo; E J Th Rutgers; R A Valdés Olmos Journal: J Oncol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 4.375