Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2024; 23(01): 010-016
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1778709
Original Article

Technical NEMA NU2–2018 Performance Assessment of Time-of-Flight-Integrated Digital PET-CT System

Manoj Kumar Singh 
1   Medikabazaar, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Krishan Kant Agarwal
2   Gujarat Imaging Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Manish Vishwakarma
1   Medikabazaar, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Hemant Patel
2   Gujarat Imaging Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim The objective of this study includes the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturer Association) NU2–2018 performance evaluation of the uMIvista PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) system.

Methods The latest NEMA NU2–2018 guidelines have been followed for the evaluation of performance parameters of this PET-CT scanner: axial, tangential, and radial spatial resolution, sensitivity, counting losses, scatter, randomness, random and counting loss correction, image quality, time and energy resolution, image uniformity, and image registration alignment post installation of country first uMIvista PET-CT.

Results The measured NEMA sensitivity of the uMIvista PET scanner was 12.053 cps/kBq. The spatial resolutions of the PET were measured as tangential, radial, and transaxial spatial resolutions at 10 mm, with 3.01 mm, 2.95 mm, and 2.93 mm, respectively; at 100 mm, with 3.17 mm, 3.42 mm, and 3.05 mm, respectively; and at 200 mm, with 3.65 mm, 4.54 mm, and 3.17 mm, respectively, at full-width half-maximum (FWHM); while at full-width tenths-maximum (FWTM), the values at 10 mm were 5.79 mm, 5.57 mm, and 5.69 mm, respectively, and at 100 mm were 5.59 mm, 5.96 mm, and 5.91 mm, respectively. The measured time-of-flight (TOF) timing resolution was 302.294 ps and the measured energy resolution was 11.76% with FWHM and FWTM.

Conclusion The NEMA NU2–2018 performances of this TOF-integrated digital PET-CT system are extremely good in all parameters.

Keywords

digital PET-CT - NEMA - NEMA NU2–2018 - PET - PET-CT - resolution - sensitivity - TOF


Publication History

Article published online:
22 January 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Vasundhara B, Hemalatha P, Raju PS. Role of PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) in cancer evaluation and treatment. World J Nucl Sci Technol. 2022; 12 (01) 11-20
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Savir-Baruch B, Banks KP, McConathy JE. et al. ACR-ACNM practice parameter for the performance of fluorine-18 fluciclovine-PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2018; 43 (12) 909-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G. et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography–imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol 2004; 6 (04) 188-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Singh MK, Mohan P, Mahajan H, Kaushik C. Technical and clinical assessment of latest technology SiPM integrated digital PETCT scanner. Radiography 2023; 29 (04) 705-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Aide N, Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Armstrong IS, Walker MD, McGowan DR. Advances in PET/CT technology: an update. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2022; 52 (03) 286-301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alberts I, Sachpekidis C, Prenosil G. et al. Digital PET/CT allows for shorter acquisition protocols or reduced radiopharmaceutical dose in [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2021; 35 (04) 485-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen S, Hu P, Gu Y, Yu H, Shi H. Performance characteristics of the digital uMI550 PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2018 standard. EJNMMI Phys 2020; 7 (01) 43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Prenosil GA, Sari H, Fürstner M. et al. Performance characteristics of the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view using the NEMA NU 2–2018 standard. J Nucl Med 2022; 63 (03) 476-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zeimpekis KG, Kotasidis FA, Huellner M, Nemirovsky A, Kaufmann PA, Treyer V. NEMA NU 2-2018 performance evaluation of a new generation 30-cm axial field-of-view Discovery MI PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49 (09) 3023-3032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Reddin JS, Scheuermann JS, Bharkhada D. et al. Performance evaluation of the SiPM-based Siemens Biograph vision PET/CT system. In: 2018 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference proceedings (Nss/Mic). 2018: 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodríguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Martí-Climent JM. Performance characteristics of the whole-body Discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 2017; 58 (07) 1155-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pan T, Einstein SA, Kappadath SC. et al. Performance evaluation of the 5-Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2012 Standard. Med Phys 2019; 46 (07) 3025-3033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar