Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commentary: An Eye on PET Quantification

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is generally considered to be a quantitative imaging modality, allowing assessment of regional differences in radiotracer accumulation and the derivation of quantitative physiological information. Due to the increasing complexity of PET technology, the quantitative accuracy of PET images has to be continually reassessed if PET is to maintain its quantitative reputation. In this commentary, we discuss the results from a recent inter-scanner study in which the quantitative outcome measures from human studies were compared for three different radiotracers. The approach is a useful complement to standard phantom tests such as those prescribed by NEMA, but the resulting data are more difficult to interpret.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA et al (1976) Design considerations for a positron emission transaxial tomograph (PETT III). IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 23:516–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van Velden FH, Mansor SM, van Assema DME et al. (2014) Comparison of HRRT and HR+ scanners for quantitative (R)-[11C]verapamil, [11C]raclopride and [11C]flumazenil brain studies. Mol Imag Biol In press

  3. de Jong HW, van Velden FH, Kloet RW et al (2007) Performance evaluation of the ECAT HRRT: an LSO-LYSO double layer high resolution, high sensitivity scanner. Phys Med Biol 52:1505–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Adam LE, Zaers J, Ostertag H et al (1997) Performance evaluation of the whole-body PET scanner ECAT EXACT HR+ following the IEC standard. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 44:1172–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brix G, Zaers J, Adam LE et al (1997) Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. J Nucl Med 38:1614–1623

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Spinks TJ, Kindler H, Hogg D, Alaradi A, Alghazirr Z (2004) Comparison between segmented and nonsegmented attenuation correction on the HR+ tomograph. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Proc 5:2877–2881

    Google Scholar 

  7. Watson CC (2000) New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 47:1587–1594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Watson CC (1996) A single scatter simulation technique for scatter correction in 3D PET. In: Grangeat P, Amans JL (eds) Three-Dimensional image reconstruction in radiation and nuclear medicine. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 255–268

  9. Sibomana M, Keller SH, Stute S, Comtat C (2012) Benefits of 3D scatter correction for the HRRT—a large axial FOV PET scanner. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2012:2954–2957

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keller SH, Svarer C, Sibomana M (2013) Attenuation correction for the HRRT PET-scanner using transmission scatter correction and total variation regularization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32:1611–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reader AJ, Tahaei MS, Rahmim A et al (2013) Multi-centre assessment of HRRT image uniformity via 68Ge and 18F cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2013:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Walker MD, Asselin MC, Julyan PJ et al (2011) Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model. Phys Med Biol 56:931–949

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Velden FH, Kloet RW, van Berckel BN, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R (2009) Accuracy of 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithms for the high-resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med 50:72–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reader AJ, Tahaei MS, Bouhachi R et al (2013) Evaluation of the HRRT and the HR+ for the task of relative region analysis using a realistic head and brain phantom. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2013:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  15. van Velden FH, Kloet RW, de Jong HW et al (2006) Quantitative experimental comparison of HRRT versus HR+ PET brain studies. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 5:3097–3099

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anton-Rodriguez JM, Sibomana M, Walker MD et al (2010) Investigation of motion induced errors in scatter correction for the HRRT brain scanner. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2010:2935–2940

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181–200

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ et al (2006) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F- FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 47:885–895

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS et al (2009) Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 50:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE et al (2013) Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1507–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

    Matthew D. Walker & Vesna Sossi

Authors
  1. Matthew D. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vesna Sossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew D. Walker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walker, M.D., Sossi, V. Commentary: An Eye on PET Quantification. Mol Imaging Biol 17, 1–3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0791-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0791-7

Key words

Search

Navigation