Article

The ECAT ART Scanner for Positron Emission Tomography. 1. Improvements in Performance Characteristics.

PET Facility, Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Clinical Positron Imaging 02/1999; 2(1):5-15. DOI: 10.1016/S1095-0397(98)00057-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The widespread use of positron emission tomography (PET) has been to some extent limited by the cost and complexity of PET instrumentation. Recognition of the wider applicability of clinical PET imaging is reflected in the ECAT ART design, a low cost PET scanner targeted for clinical applications, particularly in oncology. The ART comprises two asymmetrically opposed arrays of BGO block detectors. Each array consists of 88 (transaxial) by 24 (axial) crystals, and the arrays rotate continuously at 30 rpm to acquire a full 3D projection data set. Sensitivity and count rate limitations are key performance parameters for any imaging device. This paper reports on improved performance characteristics of the ART, achieved by operating the scanner with a decreased block integration time, reduced coincidence time window, and collimated singles transmission sources. Compared to the standard ART configuration, these modifications result in both improved count rate performance and higher quality transmission scans.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: (R)-[(11)C]rolipram and (S)-[(11)C]rolipram have been proposed to investigate phosphodiesterase-4 and, indirectly, cAMP-mediated signaling with PET. This study assessed binding of these tracers to phosphodiesterase-4 in canine myocardium. Seven dogs underwent (R)-[(11)C]rolipram and (S)-[(11)C]rolipram dynamic PET imaging at baseline and with co-injection of saturating doses of (R)-rolipram. Dual-input compartment models were applied to estimate the volumes of distribution (V(T)). The model comprising one compartment for unmetabolized tracer and one compartment for labeled metabolites provided excellent fits to data acquired with (S)-[(11)C]rolipram at baseline and with both enantiomers during co-injection scans. Use of two compartments for unmetabolized (R)-[(11)C]rolipram at baseline was warranted according to Akaike and Schwarz criteria. V(T) estimates obtained with these models were robust (CV ≤ 8.2%) and reproducible (CV ≤ 15%). An important fraction (~65%) of the V (T) of (R)-[(11)C]rolipram at baseline reflects specific binding. Thus, the latter may be a useful index of phosphodiesterase-4 levels in canine myocardium.
    Molecular imaging and biology: MIB: the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging 03/2011; 14(2):225-36. · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study compared computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTA) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the detection of significant anatomical coronary artery stenosis as defined by conventional invasive coronary angiography (CICA). The study protocol was approved by the local ethics board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Of the 26 patients (mean age 57+/-9 years, 18 men) who prospectively underwent CTA and rubidium-82 PET before CICA, 24 patients had a history of chest pain. Images were interpreted by expert readers and assessed for the presence of anatomically significant coronary stenosis (50% luminal diameter stenosis or greater) or myocardial perfusion defects. Diagnostic test characteristics were analyzed using patient-based, territory-based, vessel-based and segment-based analyses. In the 24 patients referred for chest pain, CTA had similar sensitivity to PET, but was more specific (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 72% to 100%] versus 95% [95% CI 72% to 100%], respectively; specificity 100% [95% CI 46% to 100%] versus 60% [95% CI 17% to 93%], respectively) in the detection of patients with anatomical coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater. On a per-segment basis of all 26 patients, CTA had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 72%, 99%, 91% and 95%, respectively, in all coronary segments. Coronary CTA has a similar sensitivity and specificity to rubidium-82 PET for the identification of patients with significant anatomical coronary artery disease.
    The Canadian journal of cardiology 09/2007; 23(10):801-7. · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The PET tracer (82)Rb is commonly used to evaluate regional perfusion defects for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. There is limited information on the quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve with this tracer. The goal of this study was to investigate the use of a one-compartment model of (82)Rb kinetics for the quantification of myocardial blood flow. Fourteen healthy volunteers underwent rest and dipyridamole stress imaging with both (13)N-ammonia and (82)Rb within a 2-week interval. Myocardial blood flow was estimated from the time-activity curves measured with (13)N-ammonia using a standard two-compartment model. The uptake parameter of the one-compartment model was estimated from the time-activity curves measured with (82)Rb. To describe the relationship between myocardial blood flow and the uptake parameter, a nonlinear extraction function was fitted to the data. This function was then used to convert estimates of the uptake parameter to flow estimates. The extraction function was validated with an independent data set obtained from 13 subjects with documented evidence of coronary artery disease (CAD). The one-compartment model described (82)Rb kinetics very well (median R-square = 0.98). The flow estimates obtained with (82)Rb were well correlated with those obtained with (13)N-ammonia (r = 0.85), and the best-fit line did not differ significantly from the identity line. Data obtained from the subjects with CAD confirmed the validity of the estimated extraction function. It is possible to obtain accurate estimates of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve with a one-compartment model of (82)Rb kinetics and a nonlinear extraction function.
    European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 12/2007; 34(11):1765-74. · 5.11 Impact Factor