Abstract
The use of positron-emitting radionuclide molecular imaging is important in the diagnosis and staging of malignant disease response and monitoring of treatment. In order to cope with emerging clinical needs, the imaging performance has been greatly improved recently. These developments are usually limited by the application of positron emission tomography (PET) physics; hence the primary goal in PET scanner designing is to improve spatial resolution, sensitivity, and the ratio of true coincidence count rate relative to the noise [1]. In addition to the photon counting-related statistical effects, scattered and random coincidence processes also contribute to background noise in PET. Recent advances in new models of scintillator and electronic equipment and statistically based algorithms of PET image reconstruction have greatly improved the clinical performance of PET [2, 3]. Nowadays, the new PET imaging technology is able to complete anatomically and functionally in a few minutes, which largely reduce the waiting time in clinic while maintaining a good imaging quality.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Kanno I, Miura S, Yamamoto S et al (1985) Design and evaluation of a positron emission tomography: HEADTOME III. J Comput Assist Tomogr 9(5):931–939
Kwee TC, Torigian DA, Alavi A (2013) Overview of positron emission tomography, hybrid positron emission tomography instrumentation, and positron emission tomography quantification. J Thorac Imaging 28(1):4–10
Berg E, Cherry SR (2018) Innovations in instrumentation for positron emission tomography. Semin Nucl Med 48(4):311–331
Volkow ND, Mullani NA, Bendriem B (1988) Positron emission tomography instrumentation: an overview. Am J Physiol Imaging 3(3):142–153
Porenta G (1994) Positron emission tomography: physics, instrumentation, and image analysis. Wien Klin Wochenschr 106(15):466–477
Budinger TF, Derenzo SE, Huesman RH (1984) Instrumentation for positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol 15(Suppl):S35–S43
McLean FC (1963) The use of isotopes in orthopaedics. I. The atomic nucleus and isotopes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45:1067–1072
Gambini DJ. [Basic concepts of radiology physics]. J Radiol. 2010;91(11 Pt 2):1186–1188
Casey ME, Hoffman EJ (1986) Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 7. A technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10(5):845–850
Trebossen R, Comtat C, Brulon V et al (2009) Comparison of two commercial whole body PET systems based on LSO and BGO crystals respectively for brain imaging. Med Phys 36(4):1399–1409
Matheoud R, Goertzen AL, Vigna L et al (2012) Five-year experience of quality control for a 3D LSO-based whole-body PET scanner: results and considerations. Phys Med 28(3):210–220
Conti M, Eriksson L, Rothfuss H et al (2017) Characterization of (176)Lu background in LSO-based PET scanners. Phys Med Biol 62(9):3700–3711
Shao L, Freifelder R, Karp JS (1994) Triple energy window scatter correction technique in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13(4):641–648
Lupton LR, Keller NA (1983) Performance study of single-slice positron emission tomography scanners by Monte Carlo techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2(4):154–168
Colsher JG (1980) Fully three-dimensional positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 25(1):103–115
Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G (1987) Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med 28(11):1717–1724
Ollinger JM (1996) Model-based scatter correction for fully 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 41(1):153–176
Derenzo SE (1980) Method for optimizing side shielding in positron-emission tomographs and for comparing detector materials. J Nucl Med 21(10):971–977
Bergstrom M, Eriksson L, Bohm C et al (1983) Correction for scattered radiation in a ring detector positron camera by integral transformation of the projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 7(1):42–50
Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T et al (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25(10):2046–2053
Oda K, Toyama H, Uemura K et al (2001) Comparison of parametric FBP and OS-EM reconstruction algorithm images for PET dynamic study. Ann Nucl Med 15(5):417–423
Morey AM, Kadrmas DJ (2013) Effect of varying number of OSEM subsets on PET lesion detectability. J Nucl Med Technol 41(4):268–273
Chism CB, Ravizzini GC, Macapinlac HA et al (2017) Quantitative comparison between regularized time-of-flight and OSEM PET reconstructions for small 18F-FDG-avid lesions. Nucl Med Commun 38(6):529–536
Castro P, Huerga C, Chamorro P et al (2018) Characterization and simulation of noise in PET images reconstructed with OSEM: development of a method for the generation of synthetic images. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 37(4):229–236
DeGrado TR, Turkington TG, Williams JJ et al (1994) Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med 35(8):1398–1406
Linet MS, Slovis TL, Miller DL et al (2012) Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin 62(2):75–100
Andersson M, Johansson L, Minarik D, Leide-Svegborn S, Mattsson S (2014) Effective dose to adult patients from 338 radiopharmaceuticals estimated using ICRP biokinetic data, ICRP/ICRU computational reference phantoms and ICRP 2007 tissue weighting factors. EJNMMI Phys 1(1):9
ICRP (2008) Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP publication 53. ICRP publication 106. Approved by the commission in October 2007. Ann ICRP 38(1–2):1–197
Kamiya K, Ozasa K, Akiba S et al (2015) Long-term effects of radiation exposure on health. Lancet 386(9992):469–478
Calabrese EJ, O'Connor MK (2014) Estimating risk of low radiation doses—a critical review of the BEIR VII report and its use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. Radiat Res 182(5):463–474
Andersson M, Eckerman K, Mattsson LJS (2017) Lifetime attributable risk as an alternative to effective dose to describe the risk of cancer for patients in diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine. Phys Med Biol 62(24):9177–9188
Health Physics Society. Radiation risk in perspective: position statement of the health physics society. http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf
Hendee WR, O’Connor MK (2012) Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 264(2):312–321
Gelfand MJ, Parisi MT, Treves ST et al (2011) Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med 52(2):318–322
Ayres KL, Spottswood SE, Delbeke D et al (2015) Dose optimization of the administered activity in pediatric bone scintigraphy: validation of the North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med 56(9):1391–1394
Benson CB, Doubilet PM (2014) The history of imaging in obstetrics. Radiology 273(2S):S92–S110
Lazarus E, Debenedectis C, North D, Spencer PK, Mayo-Smith WW (2009) Utilization of imaging in pregnant patients: 10-year review of 5270 examinations in 3285 patients—1997-2006. Radiology 251(2):517–524
Williams PM, Fletcher S (2010) Health effects of prenatal radiation exposure. Am Fam Physician 82(5):488–493
Wang PI, Chong ST, Kielar AZ et al (2012) Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 1, evidence-based review and recommendations. Am J Roentgenol 198(4):778–784
Wang PI, Chong ST, Kielar AZ et al (2012) Imaging of pregnant and lactating patients: part 2, evidence-based review and recommendations. Am J Roentgenol 198(4):785–792
ICRP (2000) Pregnancy and medical radiation. Ann ICRP 30(1):iii–viii, 1–43
Committee on Obstetric Gynecology Committee Opinion No. 723 (2017) Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol 130(4):e210–e216
Liepe K, Becker A (2016) Excretion of radionuclides in human breast milk after nuclear medicine examinations. Biokinetic and dosimetric data and recommendations on breastfeeding interruption. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43(5):805–807
Liu L, Liu B, Huang R, Kuang A (2017) Radiation protection and safety of nuclear medicine. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 33(12):102–106
ICRP (2004) Release of patients after therapy with unsealed radionuclides. Ann ICRP 34(2):v–vi, 1–79
IAEA (2009) Release of patients after radionuclide therapy. Safety report series no. 63. Vienna, Austria
Liu B, Peng W, Huang R et al (2014) Thyroid cancer: radiation safety precautions in 131I therapy based on actual biokinetic measurements. Radiology 273(1):211–219
Liu B, Tian R, Peng W et al (2015) Radiation safety precautions in 131I therapy of Graves’ disease based on actual biokinetic measurements. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(8):2934–2941
NRC (2008) New NRC guidance on release of patients after 131I treatment. J Nucl Med 49(7):16N
Sans-Merce M, Ruiz N, Barth I et al (2011) Recommendations to reduce hand exposure for standard nuclear medicine procedures. Radiat Meas 46(11):1330–1333
Leide-Svegborn S (2012) External radiation exposure of personnel in nuclear medicine from 18F, 99mTC and 131I with special reference to fingers, eyes and thyroid. Radiat Prot Dosim 149(2):196–206
Sans Merce M, Ruiz N, Barth I et al (2011) Extremity exposure in nuclear medicine: preliminary results of a European study. Radiat Prot Dosim 144(1–4):515–520
Kaljevic J, Stankovic K, Stankovic J, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Arandjic D (2016) Hand dose evaluation of occupationally exposed staff in nuclear medicine. Radiat Prot Dosim 170(1–4):292–296
Krajewska G, Pachocki KA (2013) Assessment of exposure of workers to ionizing radiation from radioiodine and technetium in nuclear medicine departmental facilities. Med Pr 64(5):625–630
IAEA (2005) Applying radiation safety standards in nuclear medicine. IAEA safety report series no. 40. Vienna, Austria
Feuardent J, Scanff P, Crescini D, Rannou A (2013) Occupational external exposure to ionising radiation in France (2005-2011). Radiat Prot Dosim 157(4):610–618
Mattsson S (2013) Radiation protection in nuclear medicine. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–7
Rajaraman P, Doody MM, Yu CL et al (2016) Incidence and mortality risks for circulatory diseases in US radiologic technologists who worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994-2008. Occup Environ Med 73(1):21–27
Yoshinaga S, Mabuchi K, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Ron E (2004) Cancer risks among radiologists and radiologic technologists: review of epidemiologic studies. Radiology 233(2):313–321
Simon SL, Weinstock RM, Doody MM et al (2006) Estimating historical radiation doses to a cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists. Radiat Res 166(1):174–192
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Ntowe E, Kitahara CM et al (2016) Long-term mortality in 43763 U.S. radiologists compared with 64 990 U.S. psychiatrists. Radiology 281(3):847–857
Linet MS, Kitahara CM, Ntowe E et al (2017) Mortality in U.S. physicians likely to perform fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures compared with psychiatrists, 1979 to 2008. Radiology 284(2):482–494
Linet MS, Kim KP, Miller DL, Kleinerman RA, Simon SL, Berrington de Gonzalez A (2010) Historical review of occupational exposures and cancer risks in medical radiation workers. Radiat Res 74(6):793–808
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Li, R. et al. (2019). Equipment for Imaging and Mechanism of Radiation Protection. In: Huang, G. (eds) Nuclear Medicine in Oncology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7458-6_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7458-6_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7457-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7458-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)