Quality Control of Gamma Cameras, SPECT/CT and PET/CT Units

Chapter

Abstract

The image of the activity distribution reproduced by a gamma camera or a PET camera is influenced by the properties and the condition of the camera. Regular quality control of the camera is of decisive importance for the reliability of the result. Non-optimized conditions can give rise to an incorrect diagnosis. There are several factors that will influence the image quality, such as the uniformity, energy window setting, spatial resolution, linearity, and image processing. Quality control (QC) programs for the camera should be designed to follow international guidelines. These recommendations must however be considered in the light of any national guidelines and legislation, which must be followed. Also, recommendations from the manufacturer must be taken under consideration. To follow the national legislation and the recommendations from the manufacturers must be a minimum QC program for a nuclear medicine department.

Keywords

International Atomic Energy Agency Gamma Camera International Electrotechnical Commission National Electrical Manufacturer Association Compute Tomography Dose Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Carlsson S, Svensson S-E (2007) Nuklearmedicin. Swedish Society for Nuclear Medicine, Sweden, p 1–276. http://www.sfnm.se/Nuklearmedicin_SC_SES.pdf (in Swedish)
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA) (2007) Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. NEMA NU2Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA) (2004) Performance measurements and quality control. Guidelines for non-imaging intraoperative gamma probes. NEMA NU3Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA) (2008) Performance measurement of small animal Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA NU4Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA) (2001) Performance measurement of scintillation cameras. NEMA NU 1Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) Medical electrical equipment—characteristics and test conditions of radionuclide imaging devices—anger type gamma cameras. IEC 60789—(Ort: Förlag) sidorGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) Radionuclide imaging devices—characteristics and test conditions—Part 2: Single photon emission computed tomographs. IEC 61675-2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (1998) IEC 61675-3 Radionuclide imaging devices—Characteristics and test conditions—Part 3: Gamma camera based whole body imaging systemsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quality assurance for SPECT systemsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quality assurance for PET and PET/CT systems. (Ort: Förlag) sidorGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) Quality control atlas for scintillation camera system. (Ort: Förlag) sidorGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busemann Sokole E, Britten A, On behalf of the EANM Physics Committee (2010) Acceptance testing for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 37:672–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Busemann Sokole E, Britten A, On Behalf of the EANM Physics Committee, With Contribution from the EANM Working Group on Nuclear Medicine Instrumentation Quality Control, Georgosopoulou ML, Tindale W, Klett R (2010) Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 37:662–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission (1997) Radiation protection 91. Criteria for acceptability of radiological (including radiotherapy) and nuclear medicine installationsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leitz W, Axelsson B, Szendrö G (1995) Computed tomography dose assessment—a practical approach. Radiat Prot Dosim 57:377–380Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers (NEMA) (1994) Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. NEMA NU2Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2002) Quality control in diagnostic radiology. AAPM report no. 74. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison sidorGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quality assurance for PET and PET/CT systems. IAEA human health series no. 1. IAEA, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2009) Medical electrical equipment. Part 2–44: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC 60601-2-44, 3rd edn. IEC, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Oddstig
    • 1
  • David Minarik
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mikael Gunnarsson
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Radiation PhysicsSkåne University Hospital LundLundSweden
  2. 2.Radiation PhysicsSkåne University Hospital MalmöMalmöSweden
  3. 3.Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations