Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality

ABUQBEITAH, Mohammad; SÖNMEZOĞLU, Kerim; DEMİR, MUSTAFA; YEYIN, Nami

Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality

Mustafa DEMİR, (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Turkey)

Mohammad ABUQBEITAH, (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Turkey)

Nami YEYIN, (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Turkey)

Kerim SÖNMEZOĞLU (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Turkey)

Türk Onkoloji Dergisi

13 0

Yıl: 2017 Cilt: 32 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 95 - 99 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality

Öz:

The aim of this study was to explore differences in image quality between PET/MR and PET/CT hybrid imaging systems using standard quality control and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) tests.METHODSImage acquisition and quality control tests were investigated according to the standards of NEMA NU 2-2007 using NEMA phantom and recommended image acquisition techniques. The phantom consists of lesion-like hot spheres of diameters 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm filled with 8:1 18F activity ratio to background. The remaining 28 and 37 mm cold spheres were filled with water only. A 700-mm linear line source was prepared with 3.08 mCi (140.6 MBq), and all essential ROIs were drawn after image acquisition to calculate contrast.RESULTSIn PET/MR, the average contrast of 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm diameter hot spheres in the phantom was 56%, 72%, 78%, and 85%, respectively. While the contrast of 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm diameter hot spheres in PET/CT was 53%, 66%, 72%, and 79%, respectively.CONCLUSIONPET/MR image contrast was higher than PET/CT by 9%

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Onkoloji

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med 2012;53(6):928–38.
2. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 2: bone tumors, soft-tissue tumors, melanoma, and lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2012;53(8):1244–52.
3. Wagenknecht G, Kaiser HJ, Mottaghy FM, Herzog H.MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods andchallenges. MAGMA 2013;26(1):99–113.
4. Britvich I, Johnson I, Renker D, Stoykov A, Lorenz E.Characterisation of Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes for medical imaging applications. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res 2007;571(1-2):308–11.
5. Schaart DR, Seifert S, Vinke R, van Dam HT, Dendooven P, Löhner H, et al. LaBr(3):Ce and SiPMs for time-of-flight PET: achieving 100 ps coincidence resolving time. Phys Med Biol 2010;55(7):N179–89.
6. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. EMA Standards Publication NU 2-2007. Rosslyn, VA: 2007.
7. Ziegler S, Jakoby BW, Braun H, Paulus DH, Quick HH. NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging. EJNMMI Phys 2015;2(1):18.
7. Vandenberghe S, Marsden PK. PET-MRI: a review of challenges and solutions in the development of integrated multimodality imaging. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(4):R115–54.
8. Sher AC, Orth R, McClain K, Allen C, Hayatghaibi S, Seghers V. PET/MR in the Assessment of Pediatric Histiocytoses: A Comparison to PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 2017;42(8):582–8.
9. Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, Mosebach J, Pan L, Schlemmer HP, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;5(5):469–78.
10.Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst S, Souvatzoglou M, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. JNucl Med 2014;55(5):724–9.
11.Paspulati RM, Partovi S, Herrmann KA, Krishnamurthi S, Delaney CP, Nguyen NC. Comparison Demir et al. NEMA Tests and Image Quality of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 2015;40(6):1415–25.
12.Riola-Parada C, García-Cañamaque L, Pérez-Due- ñas V, Garcerant-Tafur M, Carreras-Delgado JL. Simultaneous PET/MRI vs PET/CT in oncology. A systematic review. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2016;35(5):306–12.
13.Boellaard R, Rausch I, Beyer T, Delso G, Yaqub M,Quick HH, et al. Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: A NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. Med Phys 2015;42(10):5961–9.
14.Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C,Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of theSiemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner.J Nucl Med 2011;52(12):1914–22.
15.Karlberg AM, Sæther O, Eikenes L, Goa PE. Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR. EJNMMI Phys 2016;3(1):5.

APA	DEMİR M, ABUQBEITAH M, YEYIN N, SÖNMEZOĞLU K (2017). Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. , 95 - 99.
Chicago	DEMİR MUSTAFA,ABUQBEITAH Mohammad,YEYIN Nami,SÖNMEZOĞLU Kerim Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. (2017): 95 - 99.
MLA	DEMİR MUSTAFA,ABUQBEITAH Mohammad,YEYIN Nami,SÖNMEZOĞLU Kerim Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. , 2017, ss.95 - 99.
AMA	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. . 2017; 95 - 99.
Vancouver	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. . 2017; 95 - 99.
IEEE	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K "Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality." , ss.95 - 99, 2017.
ISNAD	DEMİR, MUSTAFA vd. "Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality". (2017), 95-99.

APA	DEMİR M, ABUQBEITAH M, YEYIN N, SÖNMEZOĞLU K (2017). Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 32(3), 95 - 99.
Chicago	DEMİR MUSTAFA,ABUQBEITAH Mohammad,YEYIN Nami,SÖNMEZOĞLU Kerim Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi 32, no.3 (2017): 95 - 99.
MLA	DEMİR MUSTAFA,ABUQBEITAH Mohammad,YEYIN Nami,SÖNMEZOĞLU Kerim Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, vol.32, no.3, 2017, ss.95 - 99.
AMA	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi. 2017; 32(3): 95 - 99.
Vancouver	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi. 2017; 32(3): 95 - 99.
IEEE	DEMİR M,ABUQBEITAH M,YEYIN N,SÖNMEZOĞLU K "Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality." Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 32, ss.95 - 99, 2017.
ISNAD	DEMİR, MUSTAFA vd. "Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality". Türk Onkoloji Dergisi 32/3 (2017), 95-99.