» Articles » PMID: 32095909

Comments on the NEMA NU 4-2008 Standard on Performance Measurement of Small Animal Positron Emission Tomographs

Overview
Journal EJNMMI Phys
Specialty Radiology
Date 2020 Feb 26
PMID 32095909
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association's (NEMA) NU 4-2008 standard specifies methodology for evaluating the performance of small-animal PET scanners. The standard's goal is to enable comparison of different PET scanners over a wide range of technologies and geometries used. In this work, we discuss if the NEMA standard meets these goals and we point out potential flaws and improvements to the standard.For the evaluation of spatial resolution, the NEMA standard mandates the use of filtered backprojection reconstruction. This reconstruction method can introduce star-like artifacts for detectors with an anisotropic spatial resolution, usually caused by parallax error. These artifacts can then cause a strong dependence of the resulting spatial resolution on the size of the projection window in image space, whose size is not fully specified in the NEMA standard. If the PET ring has detectors which are perpendicular to a Cartesian axis, then the resolution along this axis will typically improve with larger projection windows.We show that the standard's equations for the estimation of the random rate for PET systems with intrinsic radioactivity are circular and not satisfiable. However, a modified version can still be used to determine an approximation of the random rates under the assumption of negligible random rates for small activities and a constant scatter fraction. We compare the resulting estimated random rates to random rates obtained using a delayed coincidence window and two methods based on the singles rates. While these methods give similar estimates, the estimation method based on the NEMA equations overestimates the random rates.In the NEMA standard's protocol for the evaluation of the sensitivity, the standard specifies to axially step a point source through the scanner and to take a different scan for each source position. Later, in the data analysis section, the standard does not specify clearly how the different scans have to be incorporated into the analysis, which can lead to unclear interpretations of publicized results.The standard's definition of the recovery coefficients in the image quality phantom includes the maximum activity in a region of interest, which causes a positive correlation of noise and recovery coefficients. This leads to an unintended trade-off between desired uniformity, which is negatively correlated with variance (i.e., noise), and recovery.With this work, we want to start a discussion on possible improvements in a next version of the NEMA NU-4 standard.

Citing Articles

Preclinical SPECT and PET: Joint EANM and ESMI procedure guideline for implementing an efficient quality control programme.

Vanhove C, Koole M, Fragoso Costa P, Schottelius M, Mannheim J, Kuntner C Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024; 51(13):3822-3839.

PMID: 39008066 PMC: 11527901. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06824-5.


Image quality evaluation for a clinical organ-targeted PET camera.

Baldassi B, Poladyan H, Shahi A, Maa-Hacquoil H, Rapley M, Komarov B Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1268991.

PMID: 38590664 PMC: 10999605. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1268991.


Crystal scatter effects in a large-area dual-panel Positron Emission Mammography system.

Saaidi R, Rodriguez-Villafuerte M, Alva-Sanchez H, Martinez-Davalos A PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0297829.

PMID: 38427663 PMC: 10906883. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297829.


SAFIR-I: first NEMA NU 4-2008-based performance characterization.

Bebie P, Lustermann W, Debus J, Ritzer C, Dissertori G, Weber B EJNMMI Phys. 2023; 10(1):81.

PMID: 38085381 PMC: 10716090. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-023-00603-1.


Submillimeter-Resolution PET for High-Sensitivity Mouse Brain Imaging.

Kang H, Tashima H, Wakizaka H, Nishikido F, Higuchi M, Takahashi M J Nucl Med. 2022; 64(6):978-985.

PMID: 36581375 PMC: 10241014. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264433.


References
1.
Goertzen A, Bao Q, Bergeron M, Blankemeyer E, Blinder S, Canadas M . NEMA NU 4-2008 comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(8):1300-9. PMC: 4128012. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.099382. View

2.
Sato K, Shidahara M, Watabe H, Watanuki S, Ishikawa Y, Arakawa Y . Performance evaluation of the small-animal PET scanner ClairvivoPET using NEMA NU 4-2008 Standards. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 61(2):696-711. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/2/696. View

3.
Sanchez F, Moliner L, Correcher C, Gonzalez A, Orero A, Carles M . Small animal PET scanner based on monolithic LYSO crystals: performance evaluation. Med Phys. 2012; 39(2):643-53. DOI: 10.1118/1.3673771. View

4.
Alessio A, Stearns C, Tong S, Ross S, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A . Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010; 29(3):938-49. PMC: 2903538. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2010.2040188. View

5.
Oliver J, Rafecas M . Modelling Random Coincidences in Positron Emission Tomography by Using Singles and Prompts: A Comparison Study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0162096. PMC: 5014417. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162096. View