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

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti
Permessi

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

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

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

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


PDF


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.

inizio pagina