Español English Contacte con nosotros http://www.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/biblioteca
DSpace e-Archivo

Archivo Abierto Institucional de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid > Investigación > Departamentos > Departamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial: Bioingeniería > DBIAB - Journal Articles >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10016/14883

Files in This Item:
nema_JNM_2012_ps.pdf816,84 kBAdobe PDFformato pdf
Title: NEMA NU 4-2008 Comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems
Author(s): Goertzen, Andrew
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
Publisher: Society of Nuclear
Issued date: Aug-2012
Citation: Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, n. 8, aug. 2012. Pp. 1-10
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10016/14883
ISSN: 0161-5505
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.099382
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)
Preclinical PET
Appears in Collections:DBIAB - Journal Articles

Refworks Export

SFX Query

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons

Items in E-Archivo are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! © Universidad Carlos III de Madrid - Software DSpace - Terms of use - Feedback