Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Fascicoli precedenti > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2003 Giugno;47(2) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2003 Giugno;47(2):90-100



Rivista di Medicina Nucleare e Imaging Molecolare

A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413

Periodicità: Trimestrale

ISSN 1824-4785

Online ISSN 1827-1936


The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2003 Giugno;47(2):90-100


Evaluation of the clinical performances of a large NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner

Picchio M. 1, Savi A. 1, Lecchi M. 2, Landoni C. 1, Gianolli L. 1, Brioschi M. 1, Rossetti C. 3, Gilardi M. C. 1, Fazio F. 1

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Institute H. S. Raffaele University of Milano-Bicocca, ­IBFM-CNR, Milan, Italy
2 Institute of Radiological Sciences University of Milan, Milan, Italy
3 Department of Nuclear Medicine Hospital Niguarda Ca’ Granda, Milan, Italy

Aim. This ­study was ­aimed at assess­ing the clin­i­cal per­for­manc­es of a NaI(Tl) crys­tal 3D PET scan­ner, C-PET (­ADAC-UGM), ­using a mul­ti-­ring 2D BGO PET scan­ner (mul­ti-­ring PET), as a ref­er­ence.
Methods. Thirty-sev­en onco­log­i­cal ­patients ­were stud­ied in ­sequence ­with mul­ti-­ring PET and C-PET, with­in 30 ­days of a CT ­study. In ­order to ­assess the beha­vi­our of C-PET in rela­tion to acqui­si­tion ­count ­rate, ­patients ­were divid­ed ­into 3 ­groups accord­ing to the ­count ­rate at the ­time of the C-PET ­scan acqui­si­tion. Group A (n=21): 3000-5000 ­kcounts/sec (rec­om­mend­ed ­count ­rate ­range); Group B (n=8): <3000 Kcounts/sec and Group C (n=8): >5000 Kcounts/sec.
Results. The num­ber of ­lesions detect­ed by mul­ti-­ring PET and C-PET, clas­si­fied accord­ing to ­size, was com­pared. For Group A and Group B ­there was a ­good agree­ment ­between C-PET and mul­ti-­ring PET in ­terms of ­lesion detect­abil­ity (rel­a­tive sen­si­tiv­ity: 99.9% and 96.0%, respec­tive­ly), ­while for Group C the rel­a­tive sen­si­tiv­ity of C-PET was 61.9%.
Conclusion. Optimal per­for­manc­es of the C-PET scan­ner can ­thus be ­obtained at a ­count ­rate with­in or ­below the rec­om­mend­ed ­range. Despite a low­er ­lesion/back­ground con­trast result­ing ­from a ­high scat­ter and ran­dom ­noise, the sen­si­tiv­ity of C-PET in detect­ing hyper­met­a­bol­ic ­lesions is com­par­able to ­that of mul­ti-­ring PET. These find­ings are dis­cussed in rela­tion to the phys­i­cal per­for­mance of the two scan­ners and par­tic­u­lar­ly in rela­tion to the 3D vs 2D acqui­si­tion modal­ity.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina