Archivo Abierto Institucional de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid >
Departamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial: Bioingeniería >
DBIAB - Journal Articles >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
- Quinan, Bao
- Bergeron, Mélanie
- Blankemeyer, Eric
- Blinder, Stephan
- Cañadas, Mario
- Chatziioannou, Arion F.
- Dinelle, Katherine
- Elhami, Esmat
- Jans, Hans-Sönke
- Lage, Eduardo
- Lecomte, Roger
- Sossi, Vesna
- Surti, Suleman
- Tai, Yuan-Chuan
- Vaquero, Juan José
- Vicente, Esther
- Williams, Darin A.
- Laforest, Richard
|Title: ||NEMA NU 4-2008 Comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems|
|Author(s): ||Goertzen, Andrew|
Chatziioannou, Arion F.
Vaquero, Juan José
Williams, Darin A.
|Publisher: ||Society of Nuclear|
|Issued date: ||Aug-2012|
|Citation: ||Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, n. 8, aug. 2012. Pp. 1-10|
|Abstract: ||The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of smallanimal 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: micro- PET 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.|
|Sponsor: ||This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under Discovery Grant 341628-2007. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.|
|Publisher version: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.099382|
|Keywords: ||NEMA NU 4-2008|
PET performance evaluation
Positron emission tomography (PET)
|Appears in Collections:||DBIAB - Journal Articles|
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Items in E-Archivo are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.