Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume 2016, Article ID 4360371, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4360371
Research Article

Phantom Validation of Tc-99m Absolute Quantification in a SPECT/CT Commercial Device

1Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
2Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 30 August 2016; Revised 7 November 2016; Accepted 21 November 2016

Academic Editor: Hiro Yoshida

Copyright © 2016 Silvano Gnesin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Rahmim and H. Zaidi, “PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 193–207, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. D. L. Bailey and K. P. Willowson, “Quantitative SPECT/CT: SPECT joins PET as a quantitative imaging modality,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 41, supplement 1, pp. S17–S25, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. L. Bailey and K. P. Willowson, “An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 83–89, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. D'Arienzo, F. Cicone, L. Chiacchiararelli, A. Coniglio, A. B. Delaloye, and F. Scopinaro, “Three-dimensional patient-specific dosimetry in radioimmunotherapy with 90Y-ibritumomab-tiuxetan,” Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 124–133, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. A. Patton and T. G. Turkington, “SPECT/CT physical principles and attenuation correction,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. B. F. Hutton, I. Buvat, and F. J. Beekman, “Review and current status of SPECT scatter correction,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 56, no. 14, pp. R85–R112, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Zeintl, A. H. Vija, A. Yahil, J. Hornegger, and T. Kuwert, “Quantitative accuracy of clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 921–928, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Boellaard, N. C. Krak, O. S. Hoekstra, and A. A. Lammertsma, “Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1519–1527, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. Boellaard, M. J. O'Doherty, W. A. Weber et al., “FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: Version 1.0,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 181–200, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. V. Bettinardi, L. Presotto, E. Rapisarda, M. Picchio, L. Gianolli, and M. C. Gilardi, “Physical Performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690,” Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 5394–5411, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus