M Picchio, A Savi, M Lecchi, C Landoni, L Gianolli, M Brioschi, C Rossetti, M C Gilardi, F Fazio
{"title":"大型NaI(Tl)晶体三维PET扫描仪临床性能评价。","authors":"M Picchio, A Savi, M Lecchi, C Landoni, L Gianolli, M Brioschi, C Rossetti, M C Gilardi, F Fazio","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study was aimed at assessing the clinical performances of a NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner, C-PET (ADAC-UGM), using a multi-ring 2D BGO PET scanner (multi-ring PET), as a reference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven oncological patients were studied in sequence with multi-ring PET and C-PET, within 30 days of a CT study. In order to assess the behaviour of C-PET in relation to acquisition count rate, patients were divided into 3 groups according to the count rate at the time of the C-PET scan acquisition. Group A (n=21): 3000-5000 kcounts/sec (recommended count rate range); Group B (n=8): <3000 Kcounts/sec and Group C (n=8): >5000 Kcounts/sec.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of lesions detected by multi-ring PET and C-PET, classified according to size, was compared. For Group A and Group B there was a good agreement between C-PET and multi-ring PET in terms of lesion detectability (relative sensitivity: 99.9% and 96.0%, respectively), while for Group C the relative sensitivity of C-PET was 61.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Optimal performances of the C-PET scanner can thus be obtained at a count rate within or below the recommended range. Despite a lower lesion/background contrast resulting from a high scatter and random noise, the sensitivity of C-PET in detecting hypermetabolic lesions is comparable to that of multi-ring PET. These findings are discussed in relation to the physical performance of the two scanners and particularly in relation to the 3D vs 2D acquisition modality.</p>","PeriodicalId":79384,"journal":{"name":"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)","volume":"47 2","pages":"90-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the clinical performances of a large NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner.\",\"authors\":\"M Picchio, A Savi, M Lecchi, C Landoni, L Gianolli, M Brioschi, C Rossetti, M C Gilardi, F Fazio\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study was aimed at assessing the clinical performances of a NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner, C-PET (ADAC-UGM), using a multi-ring 2D BGO PET scanner (multi-ring PET), as a reference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven oncological patients were studied in sequence with multi-ring PET and C-PET, within 30 days of a CT study. In order to assess the behaviour of C-PET in relation to acquisition count rate, patients were divided into 3 groups according to the count rate at the time of the C-PET scan acquisition. Group A (n=21): 3000-5000 kcounts/sec (recommended count rate range); Group B (n=8): <3000 Kcounts/sec and Group C (n=8): >5000 Kcounts/sec.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of lesions detected by multi-ring PET and C-PET, classified according to size, was compared. For Group A and Group B there was a good agreement between C-PET and multi-ring PET in terms of lesion detectability (relative sensitivity: 99.9% and 96.0%, respectively), while for Group C the relative sensitivity of C-PET was 61.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Optimal performances of the C-PET scanner can thus be obtained at a count rate within or below the recommended range. Despite a lower lesion/background contrast resulting from a high scatter and random noise, the sensitivity of C-PET in detecting hypermetabolic lesions is comparable to that of multi-ring PET. These findings are discussed in relation to the physical performance of the two scanners and particularly in relation to the 3D vs 2D acquisition modality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"90-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the clinical performances of a large NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner.
Aim: This study was aimed at assessing the clinical performances of a NaI(Tl) crystal 3D PET scanner, C-PET (ADAC-UGM), using a multi-ring 2D BGO PET scanner (multi-ring PET), as a reference.
Methods: Thirty-seven oncological patients were studied in sequence with multi-ring PET and C-PET, within 30 days of a CT study. In order to assess the behaviour of C-PET in relation to acquisition count rate, patients were divided into 3 groups according to the count rate at the time of the C-PET scan acquisition. Group A (n=21): 3000-5000 kcounts/sec (recommended count rate range); Group B (n=8): <3000 Kcounts/sec and Group C (n=8): >5000 Kcounts/sec.
Results: The number of lesions detected by multi-ring PET and C-PET, classified according to size, was compared. For Group A and Group B there was a good agreement between C-PET and multi-ring PET in terms of lesion detectability (relative sensitivity: 99.9% and 96.0%, respectively), while for Group C the relative sensitivity of C-PET was 61.9%.
Conclusion: Optimal performances of the C-PET scanner can thus be obtained at a count rate within or below the recommended range. Despite a lower lesion/background contrast resulting from a high scatter and random noise, the sensitivity of C-PET in detecting hypermetabolic lesions is comparable to that of multi-ring PET. These findings are discussed in relation to the physical performance of the two scanners and particularly in relation to the 3D vs 2D acquisition modality.