Original article
Image Comparative Evaluation by PET/CT Equipment Using Phantom
Moo-Jin Jeong, Jun-Chul Ham, Yong-Hoon Choi, Young-Kag Bahn, Han-Sang Lim, Jae-Sam Kim
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea
Correspondence to Moo-Jin Jeong, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea, Tel :+82-2-2228-6065, E-mail : moojin0217@naver.com
Volume 28, Number 1, Article 10, May 2024. Korean J Nucl Med Technol 2024;28(1):10. https://doi.org/10.12972/kjnmt.20240010
Received on March 25, 2024, Revised on April 22, 2024, Accepted on April 29, 2024, Published on May 31, 2024.
Copyright © 2024 Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to identify SUV, SNR, spatial resolution, and axial uniformity under the same reconstruction conditions and to find out the differences between equipment models. Materials and Methods: The equipment was GE’s Discovery 600, 710, IQ, MI(GE Healthcare, USA), and the Phantom used ACR(American College of Radiology) Flangeless Esser Phantom and PET/SPECT Performance Phantom. The PET/SPECT Performance Phantom injected 18F-FDG at a concentration of 3.8 kBq/mL, and the ACR Flangeless Esser Phantom made the conditions for Hot Spot and Background activity for 4 : 1. Image evaluation was compared and evaluated for SUV, SNR, spatial resolution, and axial uniformity with the same reconstruction that added SharpIR of VPHD. Results: The SUVmax showed a difference up to 4.6% with an average of 2.71, 2.35, 1.89, and 1.43 from Hot Spot 1 to 4, and the SUVmean showed a difference up to 4.7% with 2.06, 1.75, 1.49, and 1.27. There was a difference up to 5% between equipment, and there was no significant difference between both SUVmax and SUVmean. SNR showed a difference up to 0.04 with an average of 0.37, 0.26, 0.18, and 0.11. FWHM showed a difference up to 0.27. Lastly, COV of axial uniformity was up to 0.018. Conclusion: SUV showed differences within 5% between equipment and showed no significant difference. This is considered to be used as basic data that can be used for the development and replacement of equipment because it has the advantage of being able to observe with a large number of equipment.
Keywords