Skip to main content
Log in

Instrumentation quality assurance and performance

  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shih W-J, Wierzbinski B. Cardiac SPECT: 360° circular acquisition may resolve defects of 180° data. J Nucl Med 2003;44:995–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu Y-H, Lam PT, Sinusas AJ, Wackers FJT. Differential effect of 180° and 360° acquisition orbits on the accuracy of SPECT imaging: quantitative evaluation in phantoms. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1115–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao Z, Maunoury C, Chen CC, Holder LE. Comparison of continuous step-and-shoot versus step-and-shoot acquisition SPECT. J Nucl Med 1996;37:2037–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. American College of Radiology Web site. Available from: URL: http://www.acr.org/s_acr/sec.asp?CID=1073&DID=1487. Accessed October 6, 2006.

  7. Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Nuclear Medicine Laboratories Web site. Available from: URL: http://www.icanl.org. Accessed October 6, 2006.

  8. American Association of Physicists in Medicine SPECT Task Group. Rotating scintillation camera SPECT acceptance testing and quality control. AAPM Report No. 22. New York: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nichols KJ, Galt JR. Quality control for SPECT imaging. In: DePuey EG, Berman DS, Garcia EV, editors. Cardiac SPECT imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA standards publication NU 1-1994: performance measurements of scintillation cameras. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Esser PD, Graham LS. A quality control program for nuclear medicine cameras. In: Henkin RE, et al. Nuclear medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2006. p. 246–56.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DePuey EG. How to detect and avoid myocardial perfusion SPECT artifacts. J Nucl Med 1994;35:699–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Galt JR, Faber T. Principles of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging. In: Christian PE, Bernier DR, Langan JK, editors. Nuclear medicine and PET: technology and techniques. St Louis: Mosby; 2003. p. 242–84.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cerqueira MD, Matsuoka D, Ritchie JL, Harp GD. The influence of collimators on SPECT center of rotation measurements: artifact generation and acceptance testing. J Nucl Med 1988;29:1393–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hines H, Kayayan R, Colsher J, Hashimoto D, Shubert R, Fernando J, et al. National Electrical Manufacturers Association recommendation for implementing SPECT instrumentation quality control. J Nucl Med 2000;41:383–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Greer KL, Jaszczak RJ, Coleman RE. An overview of a camerabased SPECT system. Med Phys 1982;9:455–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA standards publication NU 2-2001: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA standards publication NU 2-1994: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS, Casey ME, DiFilippo FP, Hines H, Muehllehner G, et al. PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1398–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. International Electrotechnical Commission. Radionuclide imaging devices-characteristics and test conditions. Part 1: positron emission tomographs. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. DePuey EG. Artifact is SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. In: DePuey EG, Berman DS, Garcia EV, editors. Cardiac SPECT imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 231–62.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. The DICOM standard. Available from: URL: http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2004.html. Accessed October 6, 2006.

  23. Nichols K, Yao SS, Kamran M, Faber TL, Cooke CD, DePuey EG. Clinical impact of arrhythmias on gated SPECT cardiac myocardial perfusion and function assessment. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:19–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Slomka PJ, Nishina H, Berman DS, Akincioglu C, Abidov A, Friedman JD, et al. Automated quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT using simplified normal limits. J Nucl Cardiol 2005;12:66–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Germano G, Nichols KJ, Cullom SJ, Faber TL, Cooke CD. Gated perfusion SPECT: technical considerations. In: DePuey EG, Berman DS, Garcia EV, editors. Cardiac SPECT imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 103–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nichols, K.J., Bacharach, S.L., Bergmann, S.R. et al. Instrumentation quality assurance and performance. J Nucl Cardiol 13, e25–e41 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.08.005

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.08.005

Keywords

Navigation