Basic evaluation of a C-shaped breast PET scanner

Furuta, Masafumi; Kitamura, Kazuhiro; Ohi, Junichi; Tonami, Hiromichi; Yamada, Yuzo; Furumiya, Tetsuo; Satoh, Masanobu; Tsuda, Tomoaki; Nakazawa, Masayuki; Hashizume, Nobuya; Yamakawa, Yoshiyuki; Kawashima, Ayako; Kumazawa, Yoshihiko

doi:10.1109/nssmic.2009.5402027

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7B and 7C). In enhanced-resolution mode, although the background noise increased, the intratumoral distribution of 18 F-FDG was clearly demonstrated, suggesting the potential utility of this camera for evaluating the detailed intratumoral morphologic and metabolic characteristics of the target lesion (Fig. 7D).…”

Section: Nema Image-quality Phantom Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Each detector block is composed of a 32 · 32 array of lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LGSO) crystals coupled to a 64-channel position-sensitive photomultiplier tube via a light guide. Each crystal is 4.5 mm long and has a cross-sectional area of 1.44 · 1.44 mm (18). The DOI information of 4 layers is extracted from one 2-dimensional position histogram made by Anger-type calculation, which is achieved by insertion of the reflector between crystal elements to control the behavior of scintillation photons (19).…”

Section: System Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A cylindric hole (3.2-mm diameter) was drilled parallel to the central axis at a radial distance of 17.5 mm. The line-source insert was made 5 mm shorter on both ends and filled with a well-mixed 18 F-FDG water solution that had a starting activity of 40.1 MBq as measured in a dose calibrator. The phantom was placed at the center of the FOV.…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recovery coefficients, percentage SD, and spillover ratio were obtained as described in the NEMA document. The image-quality phantom was filled with 18 F-FDG solution (3.7 MBq), and images were acquired for 20 min. For this study, image reconstruction was performed with DRAMA using 2 different modes: standard reconstruction mode with postfiltering of 1.5 mm FWHM (b 5 5) and enhanced-resolution reconstruction mode without postfiltering (b 5 100), using 128 subsets, 1 iteration, and a voxel size of 0.78 · 0.78 · 0.78 mm.…”

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Performance Evaluation of a New Dedicated Breast PET Scanner Using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance characteristics of a newly developed dedicated breast PET scanner, according to National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU 4-2008 standards. Methods: The dedicated breast PET scanner consists of 4 layers of a 32 · 32 lutetium oxyorthosilicate-based crystal array, a light guide, and a 64-channel position-sensitive photomultiplier tube. The size of a crystal element is 1.44 · 1.44 · 4.5 mm. The detector ring has a large solid angle with a 185-mm aperture and an axial coverage of 155.5 mm. The energy windows at depth of interaction for the first and second layers are 400-800 keV, and those at the third and fourth layers are 100-800 keV. A fixed timing window of 4.5 ns was used for all acquisitions. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, counting rate capabilities, and image quality were evaluated in accordance with NEMA NU 4-2008 standards. Human imaging was performed in addition to the evaluation. Results: Radial, tangential, and axial spatial resolution measured as minimal full width at half maximum approached 1.6, 1.7, and 2.0 mm, respectively, for filtered backprojection reconstruction and 0.8, 0.8, and 0.8 mm, respectively, for dynamic row-action maximum-likelihood algorithm reconstruction. The peak absolute sensitivity of the system was 11.2%. Scatter fraction at the same acquisition settings was 30.1% for the rat-sized phantom. Peak noise-equivalent counting rate and peak true rate for the ratlike phantom was 374 kcps at 25 MBq and 603 kcps at 31 MBq, respectively. In the image-quality phantom study, recovery coefficients and uniformity were 0.04-0.82 and 1.9%, respectively, for standard reconstruction mode and 0.09-0.97 and 4.5%, respectively, for enhanced-resolution mode. Human imaging provided highcontrast images with restricted background noise for standard reconstruction mode and high-resolution images for enhancedresolution mode. Conclusion: The dedicated breast PET scanner has excellent spatial resolution and high sensitivity. The performance of the dedicated breast PET scanner is considered to be reasonable enough to support its use in breast cancer imaging. Br east cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death among women worldwide, accounting for 425,000 deaths in 187 countries in 2010 (1). A strategy for reducing breast cancer mortality is early detection for successful treatment. PET systems dedicated to the breast have been under development since 1994, when Thompson et al. reported the feasibility of the first of these systems (2). The dedicated PET systems are intended to have higher photon sensitivity and improved spatial resolution by bringing the detectors close to the breast and by using smaller detector elements than those for whole-body tomography. Most of the dedicated PET systems perform positron emission mammography with 2 planar or curved detector heads that can compress the breast mildly, providing planar and limited-angle tomography images (3-8). Fully tomographic dedicated PET systems have also been introduced. This...

show abstract

Section: Nema Image-quality Phantom Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: System Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance Evaluation of a New Dedicated Breast PET Scanner Using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The total detector thickness is 18 mm, and the pitch is 1.53 mm. More detailed technical information can be found elsewhere (20). The O scanner has a full-ring detector, comprising 36 detector modules arranged in a 3-ring configuration with a diameter of 195 mm and an axial extent of 155.5 mm.…”

Section: Conventional Pet/ct and Dedicated Petmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Performance of 2 Dedicated PET Scanners for Breast Imaging: Initial Evaluation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of 2 newly developed dedicated breast PET scanners in patients with known or suspected breast cancer. Methods: Two types of scanner were evaluated, an O-shaped scanner and a C-shaped scanner. The O scanner was designed for imaging patients who were prone, and the C scanner was designed for those patients positioned leaning forward. Sixty-nine women with known or suspected breast carcinoma (80 lesions: 72 invasive carcinomas, 4 noninvasive carcinomas [ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS], 1 case of adenomatous ductal hyperplasia, and 3 benign lesions) were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent a conventional whole-body PET/CT scan, followed by breast scanning using both dedicated devices. The diagnostic performance of each scanner was assessed. Results: The maximal diameter of invasive tumors ranged from 4 to 112 mm, with an average of 26 mm. With the O scanner, 62 of 76 malignant lesions (including 3 DCIS) were detected, 5 lesions were not detected, and the remaining 9 lesions were outside the field of view. With the C scanner, 63 of 76 malignant lesions (including 2 DCIS) were detected, 7 lesions were not detected, and the remaining 6 lesions were outside the field of view. The lesion-based sensitivities of the O and C scanners were 82% (62/76) and 83% (63/76), respectively; sensitivities excluding lesions outside the field of view were 93% (62/67) and 90% (63/70), respectively. The sensitivity of conventional PET/CT was 92% (70/76). All lesions outside the field of view were close to the chest wall. The breast-based specificities of the O, C, and conventional scanners were 98% (48/49), 98% (56/57), and 100% (70/70), respectively. Conclusion: Our preliminary study indicates that both dedicated breast PET scanners are clinically feasible and yield reasonably high sensitivity. More detailed information was obtained with these scanners than with the conventional scanner.

show abstract

Simulation of Positron Emission Mammography Imaging with Pixelated CdTe.

Kolstein

Chmeissani

2016

Breast Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basic evaluation of a C-shaped breast PET scanner

Cited by 37 publications

References 6 publications

Performance Evaluation of a New Dedicated Breast PET Scanner Using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards

Performance Evaluation of a New Dedicated Breast PET Scanner Using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards

Clinical Performance of 2 Dedicated PET Scanners for Breast Imaging: Initial Evaluation

Simulation of Positron Emission Mammography Imaging with Pixelated CdTe.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About