Advertisement

Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation

  • On behalf of the EANM Physics Committee:
  • Ellinor Busemann Sokole
  • Anna Płachcínska
  • Alan Britten
  • With contribution from the EANM Working Group on Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation Quality Control:
  • Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
  • Wendy Tindale
  • Rigobert Klett
Guidelines

Introduction

These recommendations cover routine quality control (QC) of instrumentation used within a nuclear medicine department. Routine QC testing starts after installation of the instrument, and after acceptance testing, and continues on a regular basis throughout its lifetime. Additional periodic tests may be carried out to provide more in-depth testing. Recommendations for acceptance testing are covered in a separate document. These recommendations must be considered in the light of any national guidelines and legislation, which must be followed. The recommendations cover the types of tests to be performed, and suggested frequencies, but they do not specify the protocols to be followed, which are available from other reference sources quoted.

Acceptance and reference tests

After installation, and before it is put into clinical use, a nuclear medicine instrument must undergo thorough and careful acceptance testing, the aim being to verify that the instrument performs according to...

Keywords

Quality control Quality assurance Nuclear medicine instrumentation Gamma camera SPECT PET CT Radionuclide calibrator Thyroid uptake probe Nonimaging intraoperative probe Gamma counting system Radiation monitors Preclinical PET 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the other members of the EANM Physics Committee for their constructive input: M. Nowak Lonsdale, T. Beyer, B. Sattler, A. Del Guerra, and R. Boellaard. The EANM Physics Committee also wishes to acknowledge all those who participated in the Questionnaire on Quality Control Practice in Europe for Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation (February 2008).

The comments during the review process from the EANM Dosimetry Committee, and the following individuals are appreciated: A.J. Arends (The Netherlands), M. Brambilla (Italy), B. Cari (Spain), S. Christofides (Cyprus), S. Fanti (Italy), B. Farman (France), A. Frenkel (Israel), J. Holzmannhofer (Austria), L. Jødal (Denmark), W. Langsteger (Austria), J. McCavana (Republic of Ireland), O. Mundler (France), F. Pons (Spain), A. Savi (Italy), S.-Å. Starck (Sweden), A. Torresin (Italy; on behalf of EFOMP), P. Trindev (Bulgaria), J. Varga (Hungary).

References

  1. 1.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA NU 1. Performance measurement of scintillation cameras. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60789. Medical electrical equipment – Characteristics and test conditions of radionuclide imaging devices – Anger type gamma cameras. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61675-2. Radionuclide imaging devices – Characteristics and test conditions – Part 2: Single photon emission computed tomographs. Consolidated Edition 1.1. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61675-3. Radionuclide imaging devices – Characteristics and test conditions – Part 3: Gamma camera based whole body imaging systems. Ed 1. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deutsches Institut für Normung. DIN 6855-2:2005-01. Quality control of nuclear medicine instruments. Part 2: Constancy testing of single crystal gamma-cameras used in planar scintigraphy and in Anger type gamma cameras with rotating detector heads used in single photon emission tomography. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality assurance for SPECT systems. Human Health Series No. 6. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2009. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1394_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  7. 7.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality control atlas for scintillation camera systems. ISBN 92-0-101303-5. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2003. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1141_web.pdf (low resolution images). Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  8. 8.
    Hines H, Kayayan R, Colsher J, Hashimoto D, Schubert R, Fernando J, et al. Recommendations for implementing SPECT instrumentation quality control. Nuclear Medicine Section – National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Eur Nucl Med 1999;26(5):527–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busemann-Sokole E. Measurement of collimator hole angulation and camera head tilt for slant and parallel hole collimators used in SPECT. J Nucl Med 1987;28:1592–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blokland JA, Camps JA, Pauwels EK. Aspects of performance assessment of whole body imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24(10):1273–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA NU 2. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1994, 2001, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkington TG. Introduction to PET instrumentation. J Nucl Med Technol 2001;29:4–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahey FH. Data acquisition in PET imaging. J Nucl Med Technol 2002;30:39–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(10):1398–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Schulthess GK. Positron emission tomography versus positron emission tomography/computed tomography: from “unclear” to “new-clear” medicine. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6(4):183–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC/TR 61948. Nuclear medicine instrumentation – Routine tests – Part 3: Positron emission tomographs. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergmann H, Dobrozemsky G, Minear G, Nicoletti R, Samal M. An inter-laboratory comparison study of image quality of PET scanners using the NEMA NU-2 2001 procedure for assessment of image quality. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:2193–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zanzonico P. Routine quality control of clinical nuclear medicine instrumentation: a brief review. J Nucl Med 2008;49(7):1114–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality assurance for PET and PET/CT systems. Human Health Series, No. 1. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2009. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1393_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  20. 20.
    Lin PJP, Beck TJ, Borras C, et al. Specification and acceptance testing of computed tomography scanners. New York: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shepard SJ, Lin PJP, Boone JM, et al. Quality control in diagnostic radiology. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2002. p. 1–74.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    American College of Radiology. Technical standard for medical nuclear physics performance monitoring of PET-CT imaging equipment. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/med_phys/pet_ct_equipment.aspx. Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  23. 23.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality assurance for radioactivity measurement in nuclear medicine (appendix VII), Technical Report Series No. 454. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2006. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TRS454_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  24. 24.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC/TR 61948 series. Nuclear medicine instrumentation – Routine tests – Part 4: Radionuclide calibrators (IEC 2006-11). Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deutsches Institut für Normung. DIN 6855-11:2009-05. Constancy testing of nuclear medicine measuring systems – part 11: Radionuclide calibrators (IEC/TR 61948-4:2006, modified). Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gadd R, Baker M, Nijran KS, Owens S, Thomas W, Woods MJ, et al. Protocol for establishing and maintaining the calibration of medical radionuclide calibrators and their quality control. Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 93. Teddington, UK: National Physical Laboratory; 2006. http://resource.npl.co.uk/cgi-bin/download.pl?area=npl_publications&path_name=/npl_web/pdf/mgpg93.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2009
  27. 27.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality control of nuclear medicine instruments 1991. Technical document 602. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1991. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_602_web.pdf). Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  28. 28.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality control of nuclear medicine instruments. Technical document 317. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1984. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_317_prn.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2009.
  29. 29.
    Deutsches Institut für Normung. DIN 6855-1: 2009-07. Constancy testing of nuclear medicine measuring systems – Part 1: Radiation counting systems for measurements in vivo and in vitro (IEC/TR 61948–1:2001, modified). Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA NU 3. Performance measurements and quality control guidelines for non-imaging intraoperative gamma probes, Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zanzonico P, Heller S. The intraoperative gamma probe: basic principles and choices available. Semin Nucl Med 2000;30(1):33–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Halkar RK, Aarsvold JN. Intraoperative probes. J Nucl Med Technol 1999;27(3):188–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Britten AJ. A method to evaluate intra-operative gamma probes for sentinel lymph node localisation. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26(2):76–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perkins AC, Britten AJ. Specification and performance of intra-operative gamma probes for sentinel node detection. Nucl Med Commun 1999;20(4):309–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tiourina T, Arends B, Huysmans D, Rutten H, Lemaire B, Muller S. Evaluation of surgical gamma probes for radioguided sentinel node localization. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25(9):1224–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cherry SR, Sorensen JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier Science; 2003. ISBN 0-7216-8341-X.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA NU 4. Performance measurement of small animal positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2008.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61223-1. Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments – Part 1: General aspects. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bergmann H, Minear G, Raith M, Schaffarich PM. Multiple window spatial registration error of a gamma camera: 133Ba point source as a replacement of the NEMA procedure. BMC Med Phys 2008;8:6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kwang K, Lee B, Choe J. SU-FF-I-79: development of the practical guidelines of PET-CT quality control. Med Phys 2009;36:2452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ImPACT Information Leaflet No. 1: CT Scanner Acceptance Testing, Version 1.02, 18/05/01, http://www.impactscan.org/reports.htm.

Copyright information

© EANM 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • On behalf of the EANM Physics Committee:
  • Ellinor Busemann Sokole
    • 1
  • Anna Płachcínska
    • 2
  • Alan Britten
    • 3
  • With contribution from the EANM Working Group on Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation Quality Control:
  • Maria Lyra Georgosopoulou
    • 4
  • Wendy Tindale
    • 5
  • Rigobert Klett
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineMedical UniversityŁódzPoland
  3. 3.Department of Medical Physics and BioengineeringSt. George’s Healthcare NHS TrustLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, Radiation Physics UnitUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  5. 5.Medical Imaging and Medical PhysicsSheffield Teaching HospitalsSheffieldUK
  6. 6.Nuclear Medicine Practice, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations