2016
DOI: 10.1109/tns.2016.2576963
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

First Results From a High-Resolution Small Animal SiPM PET Insert for PET/MR Imaging at 7T

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Simultaneous PET/MRI studies were facilitated by using a NuPET™ PET imaging system (Cubresa, Inc., Winnepeg, MB, Canada) and a 7T Biospec MR imaging system (Bruker Biospec, Inc., Billerica, MA) [21]. A cylindrical, quadrature MR transceiver volume coil (Bruker Biospec, Inc.) with a 35 mm inner diameter and 55 mm outer diameter was placed inside a 5-mm-thick plastic sleeve, which was then placed in a cylindrical NuPET™ detector that had a 60 mm inner diameter and a 114 mm outer diameter.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simultaneous PET/MRI studies were facilitated by using a NuPET™ PET imaging system (Cubresa, Inc., Winnepeg, MB, Canada) and a 7T Biospec MR imaging system (Bruker Biospec, Inc., Billerica, MA) [21]. A cylindrical, quadrature MR transceiver volume coil (Bruker Biospec, Inc.) with a 35 mm inner diameter and 55 mm outer diameter was placed inside a 5-mm-thick plastic sleeve, which was then placed in a cylindrical NuPET™ detector that had a 60 mm inner diameter and a 114 mm outer diameter.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The overall energy resolution of the system was about 12.4% with a mean peak to valley ratio of 43.8 at 25°C temperature and 28 V bias voltage, which is better than the Inveon (14.6%), NanoPET(19%), LabPET (25%) and Argus (26%) . Moreover, it is slightly better than recently designed LYSO/SiPM‐based systems, such as MRS‐PET (14.6%), MADPET4 (13.7%), RAYCAN (15%), Hyperion (12.7%) and scanners reported by Lee et al (13.2%), Ko et al (14.2%) and Goertzen et al (12.5%) but lower than the β‐cube PET scanner (12%) …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…The insert approach can in principle significantly lower the above-mentioned cost barriers for an existing MRI site to achieve simultaneous PET/MRI as it avoids the expensive integration and installation of both PET and MRI sub-systems. Several PET insert systems for PET/MRI have been developed for proof-of-concept [25], [26], imaging small animals [27]–[36] and human brains [37]–[40]. A separate bird-cage radio-frequency (RF) transceiver coil is often placed inside the PET ring to generate and receive RF fields as the Faraday cages used in these PET insert systems block the RF fields from the MRI system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%