Comparison of NEMA NU 4-2008 vs NEMA NU 2-2001 for the performance evaluation of the microPET R4 system

Popota, Foteini; Aguiar, Pablo; Fernandez, Y. E.; Lois, Cristina; Pareto, Deborah; Ros, Domènec; Pavı́a, Javier; Gispert, Juan Domingo

doi:10.1109/nssmic.2009.5401976

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that the performance assessment of many small animal PET scanners developed in academic and corporate settings based on the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards is documented in the recent literature (Popota et al 2009, Bao et al 2009, Lage et al 2009, Kis et al 2009, Bahri et al 2009, Kemp et al 2009, Disselhorst et al 2010, Prasad et al 2010, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of the published scientific literature reporting on the performance characterization of the LabPET-8 TM system using these standards. The FBP reconstructed spatial resolution shows that the tangential spatial resolution does not vary significantly throughout the transverse FOV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NEMA NU-04-based performance characteristics of the LabPET-8™ small animal PET scanner

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to characterize the performance of the preclinical avalanche photodiode (APD)-based TM subsystem of the fully integrated trimodality PET/SPECT/CT Triumph TM scanner using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU 04-2008 protocol. The characterized performance parameters include the spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, counts rate performance and image-quality characteristics. The PET system is fully digital using APD-based detector modules with highly integrated electronics. The detector assembly consists of phoswich pairs of Lu 1.9 Y 0.1 SiO 5 (LYSO) and Lu 0.4 Gd 1.6 SiO 5 (LGSO) crystals with dimensions of 2 × 2 × 14 mm 3 having 7.5 cm axial and 10 cm transverse field of view (FOV). The spatial resolution and sensitivity were measured using a small 22 Na point source at different positions in the scanner's FOV. The scatter fraction and count rate characteristics were measured using mouse-and rat-sized phantoms fitted with an 18 F line source. The overall imaging capabilities of the scanner were assessed using the NEMA image-quality phantom and laboratory animal studies. The NEMA-based radial and tangential spatial resolution ranged from 1.7 mm at the center of the FOV to 2.59 mm at a radial offset of 2.5 cm and from 1.85 mm at the center of the FOV to 1.76 mm at a radial offset of 2.5 cm, respectively. Iterative reconstruction improved the spatial resolution to 0.84 mm at the center of the FOV. The total absolute system sensitivity is 12.74% for an energy window of 250-650 keV. For the mouse-sized phantom, the peak noise equivalent count rate (NECR) is 183 kcps at 2.07 MBq cc -1 , whereas the peak true count rate is 320 kcps at 2.5 MBq cc -1 with a scatter fraction of 19%. The rat-sized phantom had a scatter fraction of 31%, with a peak NECR of 67 kcps at 0.23 MBq cc -1 and a peak true count rate of 186 kcps at 0.27 MBq cc -1 . The average activity concentration and percentage standard 4 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. TM system is able to produce high-quality and highly contrasted images in a reasonable time, and as such it is well suited for preclinical molecular imaging-based research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NEMA NU-04-based performance characteristics of the LabPET-8™ small animal PET scanner

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of published reports on performance evaluation of the FLEX Triumph X-PET system based on NEMA NU 4-2008 standards. However, a few articles documented the performance assessment of other preclinical PET scanners using these standards (16)(17)(18)(19)(20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also document operational PET scanner performance as part of the quality-assurance program. However, until now few papers reported on the performance characterization of dedicated preclinical PET scanners using the NU 4-2008 standards (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). This work evaluates the overall performance characteristics of the X-PET subsystem of the FLEX Triumph preclinical PET/CT platform using the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards, including spatial resolution, scatter fraction, count losses and random coincidence measurements, sensitivity, and image-quality characteristics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of the FLEX Triumph X-PET Scanner Using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU-4 Standards

Prasad

Ratib²,

Zaidi³

2010

J Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the performance characteristics of the preclinical X-PET subsystem of the FLEX Triumph PET/CT scanner based on the NU 4-2008 standards of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Methods: The performance parameters evaluated include the spatial resolution, scatter fraction, count losses and random coincidences, sensitivity, and image-quality characteristics. The PET detector array consisted of 11,520 individual bismuth germanate crystals arranged in 48 rings and 180 blocks, with an axial field of view (FOV) of 11.6 cm and a inner ring diameter of 16.5 cm. The spatial resolution was measured with a small 22 Na point source (diameter, 0.25 mm) at different radial offsets from the center. Sensitivity was calculated using the same source by stepping the source axially through the axial FOV of the scanner. Scatter fraction and counting-rate performances were determined using a mouse-and rat-sized phantom with an 18 F line source insert. The NEMA image-quality phantom and rodent imaging were also performed to access the overall imaging capabilities of the scanner. Results: Tangential spatial resolution in terms of full width at half maximum varied between 2.2 mm at the center of the FOV and 2.3 mm at a radial offset of 2.5 cm. The radial spatial resolution varied between 2.0 at the center and 4.4 mm at a radial offset of 2.3 cm. The peak system absolute sensitivity was 5.9% at the center of the FOV. The absolute system sensitivity was 0.67 counts/s/Bq, and the relative total system sensitivity was 73.9%. The scatter fraction for the mouse-sized phantom was 7.9%, with a peak true counting rate of 168 kilocounts per second (kcps) at 0.3 MBq/mL and a peak noise-equivalent counting rate of 106 kcps at 0.17 MBq/ mL. The rat-sized phantom had a scatter fraction of 21%, with a peak true counting rate of 93 kcps at 0.034 MBq/mL and a peak noise-equivalent counting rate of 49 kcps at 0.02 MBq/mL. Recovery coefficients for the image-quality phantom ranged from 0.13 to 0.88. Conclusion: The performance of the X-PET scanner based on the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards was fully characterized. The overall performance demonstrates that the X-PET system is suitable for preclinical research.

show abstract

“…During the evaluation of the scatter fraction and count rate performance according to the NEMA NU 2-2001 [21], bigger phantoms were used as well as different energy windows [32]. For example, according to Knoess et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Performance Evaluation of the MicroPET R4 Scanner According to NEMA Standards NU 4-2008 and NU 2-2001

Popota

Aguiar²,

Herance

et al. 2012

IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the performance of the microPET R4 system for rodents according to the NU 4-2008 standards of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) for small-animal positron emission tomography (PET) systems and to compare it against its previous evaluation according the adapted clinical NEMA NU 2-2001. The performance parameters evaluated here were spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, counting rates for rat-and mouse-sized phantoms, and image quality. Spatial resolution and sensitivity were measured with a Na point source, while scatter fraction and count rate performance were determined using a mouse and rat phantoms with an F line source. The image quality of the system was assessed using the NEMA image quality phantom. Assessment of attenuation correction was performed using -ray transmission and computed tomography (CT)-based attenuation correction methods. At the center of the field of view, a spatial resolution of 2.12 mm at full width at half maximum (FWHM) (radial), 2.66 mm FWHM (tangential), and 2.23 mm FWHM (axial) was measured. The absolute sensitivity was found to be 1.9% at the center of the scanner. Scatter fraction for mouse-sized phantoms was 8.5 %, and the peak count rate was 311 kcps at 153.5 MBq. The rat scatter fraction was 22%, and the peak count rate was 117 kcps at 123.24 MBq. Image uniformity showed better results with 2-D filtered back projection (FBP), while an overestimation of the recovery coefficients was observed when using 2-D and 3-D OSEM MAP reconstruction algorithm. All measurements were made for an energy window of 350-650 keV and a coincidence window of 6 ns. Histogramming and reconstruction parameters were used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The microPET R4 scanner was fully characterized according to the Manuscript NEMA NU 4-2008 standards. Our results diverge considerably from those previously reported with an adapted version of the NEMA NU 2-2001 clinical standards. These discrepancies can be attributed to the modifications in NEMA methodology, thereby highlighting the relevance of specific small-animal standards for the performance evaluation of PET systems.

show abstract

Comparison of NEMA NU 4-2008 vs NEMA NU 2-2001 for the performance evaluation of the microPET R4 system

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

NEMA NU-04-based performance characteristics of the LabPET-8™ small animal PET scanner

NEMA NU-04-based performance characteristics of the LabPET-8™ small animal PET scanner

Performance Evaluation of the FLEX Triumph X-PET Scanner Using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU-4 Standards

Comparison of the Performance Evaluation of the MicroPET R4 Scanner According to NEMA Standards NU 4-2008 and NU 2-2001

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About