Dedicated phantom tools using traceable
Calibration
PET
QA
Traceable point-like sources
Journal
Radiological physics and technology
ISSN: 1865-0341
Titre abrégé: Radiol Phys Technol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101467995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
09
06
2022
accepted:
25
11
2022
revised:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
10
1
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
9
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Since the early 2000s, many types of positron emission tomography (PET) scanners dedicated to breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast cancer have been introduced. However, conventional performance evaluation methods developed for whole-body PET scanners cannot be used for such devices. In this study, we developed phantom tools for evaluating the quantitative accuracy of positron emission mammography (PEM) and dedicated-breast PET (dbPET) scanners using novel traceable point-like
Identifiants
pubmed: 36622563
doi: 10.1007/s12194-022-00692-0
pii: 10.1007/s12194-022-00692-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49-56Subventions
Organisme : JSPS
ID : KAKENHI JP18K07688
Organisme : JSPS
ID : KAKENHI JP21K07605
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.
Références
Hsu DF, Freese DL, Levin CS. Breast-dedicated radionuclide imaging systems. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Supp 1):40S-45S.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157883
pubmed: 26834101
Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, Tafra L, Adler LP, Uddo J, Stein W 3rd, Levine EA. Positron emission mammography working group. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:309–23.
doi: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00269.x
pubmed: 16848840
Schilling K, Conti P, Adler L, Tafra L. The role of positron emission mammography in breast cancer imaging and management. Appl Radiol. 2008;37:26–36.
doi: 10.37549/AR1606
Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, Ozonoff A, Miller JP, Kalinyak JE. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258:59–72.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100454
pubmed: 21076089
pmcid: 3009380
Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE, The J, Velasquez MV, Kahn S, Saady M, Mahal R, Chrystal L. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:23–36.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1588-9
pubmed: 20871992
Iima M, Nakamoto Y, Kanao S, Sugie T, Ueno T, Kawada M, Mikami Y, Toi M, Togashi K. Clinical performance of 2 dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging: Initial evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1534–42.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.100958
pubmed: 22933819
Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, Kuwada Y, Ozawa Y, Inoue T. A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:130–7.
doi: 10.1007/s12149-015-1040-0
pubmed: 26586370
Nishimatsu K, Nakamoto Y, Miyake KK, Ishimori T, Kanao S, Toi M, Togashi K. Higher breast cancer conspicuity on dbPET compared to WB-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:138–45.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.046
pubmed: 28583624
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication. NU2–1994 pp. 1–28
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs NEMA. Standards Publication. NU2–2019 pp. 1–41
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Radionuclide imaging devices - Characteristics and test conditions - Part 1: Positron emission tomographs. IEC Standard. 1998;61675–1 pp. 1–35
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Radionuclide imaging devices - Characteristics and test conditions - Part 1: Positron emission tomographs. IEC International Standard. 2013;61675–1 pp. 1–38
Springer A, Mawlawi OR. Evaluation of the quantitative accuracy of a commercially available positron emission mammography scanner. Med Phys. 2011;38:2132–9.
doi: 10.1118/1.3560881
pubmed: 21626946
Wu Y, Bowen SL, Yang K, Packard N, Fu L, Burkett G, Qi J, Boone JM, Cherry SR, Badawi RD. PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:4273–87.
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/13/020
pubmed: 19531852
pmcid: 2738997
Moliner L, Gonzalez AJ, Soriano A, Sanchez F, Correcher C, Orero A, Carles M, Vidal LF, Barbera J, Caballero L, Seimetz M, Vazquez C, Benlloch JM. Design and evaluation of the MAMMI dedicated breast PET. Med Phys. 2012;39:5393–404.
doi: 10.1118/1.4742850
pubmed: 22957607
García Hernández T, Vicedo González A, Ferrer Rebolleda J, Sánchez Jurado R, Roselló Ferrando J, Brualla González L, Granero Cabañero D, Santiago DPC, M,. Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys. 2016;43:2261–72.
doi: 10.1118/1.4945271
pubmed: 27147338
Satoh Y, Motosugi U, Imai M, Onishi H. Comparison of dedicated breast positron emission tomography and whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography images: A common phantom study. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34:119–27.
doi: 10.1007/s12149-019-01422-0
pubmed: 31768819
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Performance measurements of small animal positron emission tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication. NU4–2008 pp. 1–23
Luo W, Anashkin E, Matthews CG. Performance evaluation of a PEM scanner using the NEMA NU4-2008 small animal PET standards. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2010;57:94–103.
doi: 10.1109/TNS.2009.2036847
Miyake KK, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, Nakamoto Y, Kanao S, Oishi T, Kawase S, Kitamura K, Yamakawa Y, Akazawa A, Kobayashi T, Ohi J, Togashi K. Performance evaluation of a new dedicated breast PET scanner using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1198–203.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.131565
pubmed: 24812244
Japan Medical Imaging and Radiological Systems Industries Association (JIRA). Performance evaluation of positron emission tomographs. JESRA X-0073*G-2019
Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, Proffitt J, Hammond W, Srinivasan A, McKisson J, Popov V, Weisenberger A, Judy CO, Kross B, Ramasubramanian S, Banta LE, Kinahan PE, Champley K. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): Design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:637–53.
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/3/009
pubmed: 18199907
Spinks T, Jones T, Heather J, Gilardi M. Quality control procedures in positron tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1989;15:736–40.
doi: 10.1007/BF00631767
pubmed: 2583203
Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, Ivancević V, Bares R, Munz DL. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:635–9.
pubmed: 11994527
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:11S-20S.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182
pubmed: 19380405
Zimmerman BE, Cessna JT. Development of a traceable calibration methodology for solid
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.070300
pubmed: 20197450
Zimmerman BE, Pibida L, King LE, Bergeron DE, Cessna JT, Mille MM. Development of a calibration methodology for large-volume, solid
doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.11.049
pubmed: 24332342
Zimmerman BE, Bergeron DE, Cessna JT. Impact of recent change in the National Institute of Standards and Technology standard for
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.159384
pubmed: 26182967
Hasegawa T, Sato Y, Oda K, Wada Y, Murayama H, Yamada T. Semi-quantitative and simulation analyses of effects of γ rays on determination of calibration factors of PET scanners with point-like
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/18/016
pubmed: 21865623
Hasegawa T, Okamoto M, Yamada T, Ishizu H, Mikamoto T, Sato Y, Miyatake H, Kikuchi K, Inoue Y. Traceable point-like
doi: 10.1007/s12194-020-00565-4
pubmed: 32361900
Yamada Y, Kitamura K, Hashizume N, Yamakawa Y, Kumaza Y. Reconstruction of 4-Layer DOI detector equipped C-Shaped PEM via list-mode iterative algorithm. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 2007;4397–4400. https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2007.4437087
Hasegawa T, Oda K, Wada Y, Sasaki T, Sato Y, Yamada T, Matsumoto M, Murayama H, Kikuchi K, Miyatake H, Abe Y, Miwa K, Akimoto K, Wagatsuma K. Validation of novel calibration scheme with traceable point-like
doi: 10.1007/s12149-013-0692-x
pubmed: 23381938
Panetta JV, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS. Validation of phantom-based harmonization for patient harmonization. Med Phys. 2017;44:3534–44.
doi: 10.1002/mp.12311
pubmed: 28464372
pmcid: 5508562
van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, Lubberink M, Willemsen ATM, Visser EP. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(Suppl 1):4–16.
pubmed: 28687866
pmcid: 5541089
Namías M, Bradshaw T, Menezes VO, Machado MAD, Jeraj R. A novel approach for quantitative harmonization in PET. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63: 095019.
doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aabb5f
pubmed: 29726406
Disselhorst JA, Brom M, Laverman P, Slump CoH, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG, Gotthardt M, Visser EP. Image-quality assessment for several positron emitters using the NEMA NU 4–2008 standards in the Siemens Inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:610–7.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.068858
pubmed: 20237025
Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375–89.
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/004
pubmed: 21427485
MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1666–75.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064345
pubmed: 19759118