UNLABELLED: The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of small-animal tomographs was recently published. Before this standard, there were no standard testing procedures for preclinical PET systems, and manufacturers could not provide clear specifications similar to those available for clinical systems under NEMA NU 2-1994 and 2-2001. Consequently, performance evaluation papers used methods that were modified ad hoc from the clinical PET NEMA standard, thus making comparisons between systems difficult. METHODS: We acquired NEMA NU 4-2008 performance data for a collection of commercial animal PET systems manufactured since 2000: microPET P4, microPET R4, microPET Focus 120, microPET Focus 220, Inveon, ClearPET, Mosaic HP, Argus (formerly eXplore Vista), VrPET, LabPET 8, and LabPET 12. The data included spatial resolution, counting-rate performance, scatter fraction, sensitivity, and image quality and were acquired using settings for routine PET. RESULTS: The data showed a steady improvement in system performance for newer systems as compared with first-generation systems, with notable improvements in spatial resolution and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Variation in system design makes direct comparisons between systems from different vendors difficult. When considering the results from NEMA testing, one must also consider the suitability of the PET system for the specific imaging task at hand.
UNLABELLED: The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of small-animal tomographs was recently published. Before this standard, there were no standard testing procedures for preclinical PET systems, and manufacturers could not provide clear specifications similar to those available for clinical systems under NEMA NU 2-1994 and 2-2001. Consequently, performance evaluation papers used methods that were modified ad hoc from the clinical PET NEMA standard, thus making comparisons between systems difficult. METHODS: We acquired NEMA NU 4-2008 performance data for a collection of commercial animal PET systems manufactured since 2000: microPET P4, microPET R4, microPET Focus 120, microPET Focus 220, Inveon, ClearPET, Mosaic HP, Argus (formerly eXplore Vista), VrPET, LabPET 8, and LabPET 12. The data included spatial resolution, counting-rate performance, scatter fraction, sensitivity, and image quality and were acquired using settings for routine PET. RESULTS: The data showed a steady improvement in system performance for newer systems as compared with first-generation systems, with notable improvements in spatial resolution and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Variation in system design makes direct comparisons between systems from different vendors difficult. When considering the results from NEMA testing, one must also consider the suitability of the PET system for the specific imaging task at hand.
Authors: C Tai; A Chatziioannou; S Siegel; J Young; D Newport; R N Goble; R E Nutt; S R Cherry Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yuan-Chuan Tai; Ananya Ruangma; Douglas Rowland; Stefan Siegel; Danny F Newport; Patrick L Chow; Richard Laforest Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Watanabe; H Uchida; H Okada; K Shimizu; N Satoh; E Yoshikawa; T Ohmura; T Yamashita; E Tanaka Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 1992 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Eric P Visser; Jonathan A Disselhorst; Maarten Brom; Peter Laverman; Martin Gotthardt; Wim J G Oyen; Otto C Boerman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P M Bloomfield; S Rajeswaran; T J Spinks; S P Hume; R Myers; S Ashworth; K M Clifford; W F Jones; L G Byars; J Young Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Christof Knoess; Stefan Siegel; Anne Smith; Danny Newport; Norbert Richerzhagen; Alexandra Winkeler; Andreas Jacobs; Rhonda N Goble; Rudolf Graf; Klaus Wienhard; Wolf-Dieter Heiss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-01-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A Stolin; G Jaliparthi; R R Raylman; J Brefczynski-Lewis; S Majewski; J Qi; K Gong; S Dolinsky Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2019-01-23
Authors: Tyler J Bradshaw; Martin J Voorbach; David R Reuter; Anthony M Giamis; Sarah R Mudd; John D Beaver Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Kristina Herfert; Julia G Mannheim; Laura Kuebler; Sabina Marciano; Mario Amend; Christoph Parl; Hanna Napieczynska; Florian M Maier; Salvador Castaneda Vega; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Patrick Ledden; Alexander V Stolin; Bob Hou; Ganghadar Jaliparthi; Peter F Martone Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-09-08
Authors: Zheng Gu; Richard Taschereau; Nam T Vu; David L Prout; Robert W Silverman; Jason T Lee; Arion F Chatziioannou Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 10.057