The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (핵의학기술)

The Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine Technology (대한핵의학기술학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of Image for Phantom according to Normalization, Well Counter Correction in PET-CT

PET-CT Normalization, Well Counter Correction에 따른 팬텀을 이용한 영상 평가

  • Choong-Woon Lee (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Yeon-Wook You (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Jong-Woon Mun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Yun-Cheol Kim (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center)
  • Published : 2023.05.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose PET-CT imaging require an appropriate quality assurance system to achieve high efficiency and reliability. Quality control is essential for improving the quality of care and patient safety. Currently, there are performance evaluation methods of UN2-1994 and UN2-2001 proposed by NEMA and IEC for PET-CT image evaluation. In this study, we compare phantom images with the same experiments before and after PET-CT 3D normalization and well counter correction and evaluate the usefulness of quality control. Materials and methods Discovery 690 (General Electric Healthcare, USA) PET-CT equiptment was used to perform 3D normalization and well counter correction as recommended by GE Healthcare. Based on the recovery coefficients for the six spheres of the NEMA IEC Body Phantom recommended by the EARL. 20kBq/㎖ of 18F was injected into the sphere of the phantom and 2kBq/㎖ of 18F was injected into the body of phantom. PET-CT scan was performed with a radioacitivity ratio of 10:1. Images were reconstructed by appliying TOF+PSF+TOF, OSEM+PSF, OSEM and Gaussian filter 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6,5 mm with matrix size 128×128, slice thickness 3.75 mm, iteration 2, subset 16 conditions. The PET image was attenuation corrected using the CT images and analyzed using software program AW 4.7 (General Electric Healthcare, USA). The ROI was set to fit 6 spheres in the CT image, RC (Recovery Coefficient) was measured after fusion of PET and CT. Statistical analysis was performed wilcoxon signed rank test using R. Results Overall, after the quality control items were performed, the recovery coefficient of the phantom image increased and measured. Recovery coefficient according to the image reconstruction increased in the order TOF+PSF, TOF, OSEM+PSF, before and after quality control, RCmax increased by OSEM 0.13, OSEM+PSF 0.16, TOF 0.16, TOF+PSF 0.15 and RCmean increased by OSEM 0.09, OSEM+PSF 0.09, TOF 0.106, TOF+PSF 0.10. Both groups showed a statistically significant difference in Wilcoxon signed rank test results (P value<0.001). Conclusion PET-CT system require quality assurance to achieve high efficiency and reliability. Standardized intervals and procedures should be followed for quality control. We hope that this study will be a good opportunity to think about the importance of quality control in PET-CT

Keywords

References

  1. Lee MC. Current status and future perspective of PET. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;36(1):1-7. 
  2. Ko CS. Nuclear Medicine. 3rd ed. Korea med publish; 2008. p. 81, p. 106 
  3. AAPM publication. AAPM report no.126. PET-CT acceptance testing and quality assurance.
  4. General Electric Healthcare. Technical publication: DiscoveryTM PET-CT 600 series user manual 5400906-1KO. Milwaukee, General Electric company. 2019 
  5. Korea Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist. Guidelines for PET and PET-CT quality control items and measurement methods. 2009 
  6. National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA standard publication NU 2-1994. Performance measurements of positron emission tomography. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 1994 
  7. National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA standard publication NU 2-2001. Performance measurements of positron emission tomography. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2001 
  8. Lee BI. Quality assurance and performance evaluation of PET-CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;42(2):137-44. 
  9. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET-CT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):394-411.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3635220
  10. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET-CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumor PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med. 2010;37:181. 
  11. National Electrical Manufactures Association. Standards publication NU-2: Performance measurements of positron emission tomographys. Rosslynm VA. 2007 
  12. International Eletrotechnical Comission. Characteristics and test conditions Part1: Positron emission tomographys. Genevam Switzerland. 1998 
  13. Kaalep A, Burggraaff CN, Pieplenbosch S, Verwer EE, Sera T, Zijlstra J, et al. Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET-CT performance standards. EJNMMI Physics. 2019;6:28. 
  14. EARL PET-CT accreditation user manual Version 3.3. 2021 
  15. Sokole EB, Plachcinska A, Britten A, Georgosopoulou ML, Tindale W, Klett R. Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. EJNMMI. 2010;37:662-71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1347-y
  16. General Electric Healthcare. Technical publication: DiscoveryTM MI and DiscoveryTM MI columbia user manual 5720964-1EN. Milwaukee, General Electric Company. 2019 
  17. Kaalep A, Sera T, Bijndorp S, Yaqub M, Talsma A, Lodge MA, et al. Feasibility of state of the art PET-CT systems performance harmonisation. EJNMMI. 2018;45:1344-61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4