Literature DB >> 25238997

Commentary: an eye on PET quantification.

Matthew D Walker1, Vesna Sossi.   

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is generally considered to be a quantitative imaging modality, allowing assessment of regional differences in radiotracer accumulation and the derivation of quantitative physiological information. Due to the increasing complexity of PET technology, the quantitative accuracy of PET images has to be continually reassessed if PET is to maintain its quantitative reputation. In this commentary, we discuss the results from a recent inter-scanner study in which the quantitative outcome measures from human studies were compared for three different radiotracers. The approach is a useful complement to standard phantom tests such as those prescribed by NEMA, but the resulting data are more difficult to interpret.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25238997      PMCID: PMC7086518          DOI: 10.1007/s11307-014-0791-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol        ISSN: 1536-1632            Impact factor:   3.488


  10 in total

1.  Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0.

Authors:  Dominique Delbeke; R Edward Coleman; Milton J Guiberteau; Manuel L Brown; Henry D Royal; Barry A Siegel; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland; J Anthony Parker; Karl Hubner; Michael G Stabin; George Zubal; Marc Kachelriess; Valerie Cronin; Scott Holbrook
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Performance evaluation of the ECAT HRRT: an LSO-LYSO double layer high resolution, high sensitivity scanner.

Authors:  Hugo W A M de Jong; Floris H P van Velden; Reina W Kloet; Fred L Buijs; Ronald Boellaard; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

Authors:  G Brix; J Zaers; L E Adam; M E Bellemann; H Ostertag; H Trojan; U Haberkorn; J Doll; F Oberdorfer; W J Lorenz
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Attenuation correction for the HRRT PET-scanner using transmission scatter correction and total variation regularization.

Authors:  Sune H Keller; Claus Svarer; Merence Sibomana
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Comparison of HRRT and HR+ scanners for quantitative (R)-[11C]verapamil, [11C]raclopride and [11C]flumazenil brain studies.

Authors:  Floris H P van Velden; Syahir M Mansor; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Bart N M van Berckel; Femke E Froklage; Shaonan Wang; Robert C Schuit; Marie-Claude Asselin; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Marc C Huisman
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model.

Authors:  M D Walker; M-C Asselin; P J Julyan; M Feldmann; P S Talbot; T Jones; J C Matthews
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Accuracy of 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithms for the high-resolution research tomograph.

Authors:  Floris H P van Velden; Reina W Kloet; Bart N M van Berckel; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures.

Authors:  Nikolaos E Makris; Marc C Huisman; Paul E Kinahan; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0.

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

10.  Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience.

Authors:  Joshua S Scheuermann; Janet R Saffer; Joel S Karp; Anthony M Levering; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 10.057

  10 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective.

Authors:  Jonathan B Moody; Benjamin C Lee; James R Corbett; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Measurement of Hypothalamic Glucose Under Euglycemia and Hyperglycemia by MRI at 3T.

Authors:  James M Joers; Dinesh K Deelchand; Anjali Kumar; Amir Moheet; Elizabeth Seaquist; Pierre-Gilles Henry; Gülin Öz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Impact of New Scatter Correction Strategies on High-Resolution Research Tomograph Brain PET Studies.

Authors:  Syahir Mansor; Ronald Boellaard; Marc C Huisman; Bart N M van Berckel; Robert C Schuit; Albert D Windhorst; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Floris H P van Velden
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Reproducibility of Quantitative Brain Imaging Using a PET-Only and a Combined PET/MR System.

Authors:  Martin L Lassen; Otto Muzik; Thomas Beyer; Marcus Hacker; Claes Nøhr Ladefoged; Jacobo Cal-González; Wolfgang Wadsak; Ivo Rausch; Oliver Langer; Martin Bauer
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 4.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.