A Novel Model for Monte Carlo Simulation of Performance Parameters of the Rodent Research PET (RRPET) Camera Based on NEMA NU-4 Standards

Zeraatkar, Navid; Ay, Mohammad Reza; Kamali-Asl, Alireza; Zaidi, Habib

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13039-7_78

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Up to now, the available MC codes have been validated following the NEMA NU 2-2001 standards for a wide range of clinical scanners (Staelens et al 2003, Assie et al 2004, Jan et al 2005, Schmidtlein et al 2005, Karakatsanis et al 2006, Lamare et al 2006, Gonias et al 2007, Carlier et al 2008, but there is not such an extensive validation for preclinical systems (Lazaro et al 2004, Merheb et al 2006, Espana et al 2007, Yang et al 2007, Rafecas et al 2009, Abushab et al 2011. Following the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards, GATE has been validated in terms of sensitivity and count rate using the RRPET camera (Zeraatkar et al 2010) while PeneloPET has been validated in terms of scatter fraction using the ARGUS small animal PET scanner (Vicente et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monte Carlo simulations versus experimental measurements in a small animal PET system. A comparison in the NEMA NU 4-2008 framework

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work a comparison between experimental and simulated data using GATE and PeneloPET Monte Carlo simulation packages is presented. All simulated setups, as well as the experimental measurements, followed exactly the guidelines of the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards using the microPET R4 scanner. The comparison was focused on spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction and counting rates performance. Both GATE and PeneloPET showed reasonable agreement for the spatial resolution when compared to experimental measurements, although they lead to slight underestimations for the points close to the edge. High accuracy was obtained between experiments and simulations of the system's sensitivity and scatter fraction for an energy window of 350-650 keV, as well as for the counting rate simulations. The latter was the most complicated test to perform since each code demands different specifications for the characterization of the system's dead time. Although simulated and experimental results were in excellent agreement for both simulation codes, PeneloPET demanded more information about the behavior of the real data acquisition system. To our knowledge, this constitutes the first validation of these Monte Carlo codes for the full NEMA NU 4-2008 standards for small animal PET imaging systems.

show abstract