155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18670864)
1. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners.
Takahashi Y; Oriuchi N; Otake H; Endo K; Murase K
Ann Nucl Med; 2008 Jul; 22(6):543-8. PubMed ID: 18670864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Phantom study of the impact of reconstruction parameters on the detection of mini- and micro-volume lesions with a low-dose PET/CT acquisition protocol.
Ferretti A; Bellan E; Gava M; Chondrogiannis S; Massaro A; Nibale O; Rubello D
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 81(11):3363-70. PubMed ID: 22613508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Defining a radiotherapy target with positron emission tomography.
Black QC; Grills IS; Kestin LL; Wong CY; Wong JW; Martinez AA; Yan D
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Nov; 60(4):1272-82. PubMed ID: 15519800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An inter-laboratory comparison study of image quality of PET scanners using the NEMA NU 2-2001 procedure for assessment of image quality.
Bergmann H; Dobrozemsky G; Minear G; Nicoletti R; Samal M
Phys Med Biol; 2005 May; 50(10):2193-207. PubMed ID: 15876661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Standardization of image quality across multiple centers by optimization of acquisition and reconstruction parameters with interim FDG-PET/CT for evaluating diffuse large B cell lymphoma.
Daisaki H; Tateishi U; Terauchi T; Tatsumi M; Suzuki K; Shimada N; Nishida H; Numata A; Kato K; Akashi K; Harada M
Ann Nucl Med; 2013 Apr; 27(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 23264065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values.
Jaskowiak CJ; Bianco JA; Perlman SB; Fine JP
J Nucl Med; 2005 Mar; 46(3):424-8. PubMed ID: 15750154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimizing positron emission tomography image acquisition protocols in integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging.
Hartung-Knemeyer V; Beiderwellen KJ; Buchbender C; Kuehl H; Lauenstein TC; Bockisch A; Poeppel TD
Invest Radiol; 2013 May; 48(5):290-4. PubMed ID: 23399811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of Statistical Fluctuation on Reproducibility and Accuracy of SUVmax and SUVpeak: A Phantom Study.
Akamatsu G; Ikari Y; Nishida H; Nishio T; Ohnishi A; Maebatake A; Sasaki M; Senda M
J Nucl Med Technol; 2015 Sep; 43(3):222-6. PubMed ID: 26271802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Harmonization of Standardized Uptake Value among Different Generation PET/ CT Cameras Based on a Phantom Experiment -Utility of SUV(peak)].
Akamatsu G; Nishida H; Fujino A; Ohnishi A; Ikari Y; Nishio T; Maebatake A; Sasaki M; Senda M
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2015 Sep; 71(9):735-45. PubMed ID: 26400557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom.
Sunderland JJ; Christian PE
J Nucl Med; 2015 Jan; 56(1):145-52. PubMed ID: 25525180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. New standards for phantom image quality and SUV harmonization range for multicenter oncology PET studies.
Akamatsu G; Shimada N; Matsumoto K; Daisaki H; Suzuki K; Watabe H; Oda K; Senda M; Terauchi T; Tateishi U
Ann Nucl Med; 2022 Feb; 36(2):144-161. PubMed ID: 35029817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How to harmonize SUVs obtained by hybrid PET/CT scanners with and without point spread function correction.
Ferretti A; Chondrogiannis S; Rampin L; Bellan E; Marzola MC; Grassetto G; Gusella S; Maffione AM; Gava M; Rubello D
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Nov; 63(23):235010. PubMed ID: 30474620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of two commercial whole body PET systems based on LSO and BGO crystals respectively for brain imaging.
Trébossen R; Comtat C; Brulon V; Bailly P; Meyer ME
Med Phys; 2009 Apr; 36(4):1399-409. PubMed ID: 19472647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Objective and subjective comparison of standard 2-D and fully 3-D reconstructed data on a PET/CT system.
Strobel K; Rüdy M; Treyer V; Veit-Haibach P; Burger C; Hany TF
Nucl Med Commun; 2007 Jul; 28(7):555-9. PubMed ID: 17538397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional acquisition for 18F-FDG PET oncology studies performed on an LSO-based scanner.
Lodge MA; Badawi RD; Gilbert R; Dibos PE; Line BR
J Nucl Med; 2006 Jan; 47(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 16391183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of PET for diagnosis of solid pulmonary lesions with 18F-FDG uptake below the standardized uptake value of 2.5.
Hashimoto Y; Tsujikawa T; Kondo C; Maki M; Momose M; Nagai A; Ohnuki T; Nishikawa T; Kusakabe K
J Nucl Med; 2006 Mar; 47(3):426-31. PubMed ID: 16513611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Adrenal masses in patients with cancer: PET/CT characterization with combined CT histogram and standardized uptake value PET analysis.
Perri M; Erba P; Volterrani D; Guidoccio F; Lazzeri E; Caramella D; Mariani G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jul; 197(1):209-16. PubMed ID: 21701032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET.
Prieto E; Domínguez-Prado I; García-Velloso MJ; Peñuelas I; Richter JÁ; Martí-Climent JM
Clin Nucl Med; 2013 Feb; 38(2):103-9. PubMed ID: 23334123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Use of count-based image reconstruction to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured standardised uptake values.
Kaneta T; Daisaki H; Ogawa M; Liu ET; Iizuka H; Arisawa T; Hino-Shishikura A; Yoshida K; Inoue T
PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0192549. PubMed ID: 29432459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of a Digital PET Prototype in Patients with Oncologic Diseases: Initial Experience and Comparison with Analog PET.
Nguyen NC; Vercher-Conejero JL; Sattar A; Miller MA; Maniawski PJ; Jordan DW; Muzic RF; Su KH; O'Donnell JK; Faulhaber PF
J Nucl Med; 2015 Sep; 56(9):1378-85. PubMed ID: 26159588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
