Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2023; 22(04): 267-275
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777696
Original Article

Operational and Performance Experience with uMI550 Digital PET-CT during Routine Quality Control Procedures

Manoj Kumar Singh
1   Medikabazaar, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
V. Sai Krishna Mohan
2   Medicover Cancer Institute, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Chanchal Kaushik
3   School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The quality control (QC) procedures for positron emission tomography (PET) scanners are covered by National Electrical Manufacturers Association and International Electrotechnical Commission. QC must be carried out at regular intervals according to the specifications of the scanner manufacturer. Daily and weekly QC plays a valuable role in monitoring positron emission tomography (PET) scanner performance changes. This study shares operational and performance experience of QC procedures that do not require a radioactive Ge-68 source to perform daily QC and experience with fluorodeoxyglucose F18 (18F-FDG) as a substitute for germanium-68/sodium-22 (Ge-68/Na-22) source for weekly QC.

Method This study was performed on an uMI550 digital positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanner. In this scanner daily QC checks system temperature and humidity, system count rate, data link status, and voltage. QC was performed at the console control, the position of the scanner table was in the home position pulled out from the gantry, and the room was closed during the quick QC. Weekly full QC check items include look-up table drift, energy drift, time-of-flight status, C-map status, temperature and humidity, and voltage. Weekly full QC was performed with a 18F-FDG source in a rod phantom source.

Results Over 200 daily QC tests without a radioactive source Ge-68 phantom and 50 full weekly QC tests using a 18F-FDG rod phantom were performed with this scanner according to the manufacturer's instructions and a test report was generated. No daily QC errors or warnings were observed during this period.

Conclusion The new approach for the daily PET QC does not expose operators to radiation. This translates into commercial and operational merits with consistent performance and results.

Implications for Practice Reduction in radiation exposure to operating staff during QC procedure in PET-CT scanner.

Keywords

PET - PET-CT - daily and weekly QC - Ge-68 - 18F-FDG


Publication History

Article published online:
26 December 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Matheoud R, Goertzen AL, Vigna L, Ducharme J, Sacchetti G, Brambilla M. Five-year experience of quality control for a 3D LSO-based whole-body PET scanner: results and considerations. Phys Med 2012; 28 (03) 210-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Singh MK. A review of digital PET-CT technology: comparing performance parameters in SiPM integrated digital PET-CT systems. Radiography 2024; 30 (01) 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brambilla M, Secco C, Dominietto M, Matheoud R, Sacchetti G, Inglese E. Performance characteristics obtained for a new 3-dimensional lutetium oxyorthosilicate-based whole-body PET/CT scanner with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med 2005; 46 (12) 2083-2091
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kheruka SC. Importance of quality control in nuclear medicine. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). INIS 2020;52(23):
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 2007; 48 (03) 471-480
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wang R, Shen G, Huang M, Tian R. The diagnostic role of 18F-choline, 18F-fluciclovine and 18F-PSMA PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 684629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hoffmann MA, Wieler HJ, Baues C, Kuntz NJ, Richardsen I, Schreckenberger M. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and PET/MRI on the management of prostate cancer. Urology 2019; 130: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sanli Y, Garg I, Kandathil A. et al. Neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis and management: 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211 (02) 267-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Piccardo A, Fiz F, Bottoni G, Ugolini M, Noordzij W, Trimboli P. Head-to-head comparison between 18 F-DOPA PET/CT and 68 Ga-DOTA peptides PET/CT in detecting intestinal neuroendocrine tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2021; 95 (04) 595-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Singh MK, Nanabala R, Muhammed AK. et al. A cost effective method for the preparation of sodium fluoride [18F]NaF for PET-CT imaging by using an in-house designed module. Appl Radiat Isot 2023; 191: 110565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Prenosil GA, Sari H, Fürstner M. et al. Performance characteristics of the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view using the NEMA NU 2–2018 standard. J Nucl Med 2022; 63 (03) 476-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koole M, Armstrong I, Krizsan AK. et al; EANM Physics committee. EANM guidelines for PET-CT and PET-MR routine quality control. Z Med Phys 2023; 33 (01) 103-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA N. NU 2–2018-Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, USA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association;; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Lopez BP, Jordan DW, Kemp BJ, Kinahan PE, Schmidtlein CR, Mawlawi OR. PET/CT acceptance testing and quality assurance: executive summary of AAPM Task Group 126 Report. Med Phys 2021; 48 (02) e31-e35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS, Casey ME. et al. PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med 2002; 43 (10) 1398-1409
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hallab R, Eddaoui khalida, Ouabi H, Raïs Aouad NB. Regulatory requirements of quality assurance program in nuclear medicine – review of the procedures. Biomed Pharmacol J 2021; 14 (04) 1863-1867
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A. et al. EANM/SNMMI guideline for 18F-FDG use in inflammation and infection. J Nucl Med 2013; 54 (04) 647-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schaefferkoetter JD, Osman M, Townsend DW. The importance of quality control for clinical PET imaging. J Nucl Med Technol 2017; 45 (04) 265-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2010; 31 (06) 496-505
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nichols KJ, Bacharach SL, Bergmann SR. et al; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Instrumentation quality assurance and performance. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13 (06) e25-e41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Byrd D, Christopfel R, Arabasz G. et al. Measuring temporal stability of positron emission tomography standardized uptake value bias using long-lived sources in a multicenter network. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018; 5 (01) 011016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Radioisotopes IA, No RS. Cyclotron Produced Radionuclides: Operation and Maintenance of Gas and Liquid Targets. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency;; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Morgan TL. Quality assurance for PET and PET/CT systems. Health Physics 2012; 103 (06) 810-811
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Valladares A, Ahangari S, Beyer T. et al. Clinically valuable quality control for PET/MRI systems: consensus recommendation from the HYBRID consortium. Front Phys 2019; 7 136: 1-14
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hallab R. The Quality Assurance for the PET/CT in Nuclear Medicine–Evaluation of the Daily Quality Control of the Positron Emission Tomography. Biomed Pharmacol J 2022; 15 (03) 1589-1595
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Singh MK, Mohan P, Mahajan H, Kaushik C. Technical and clinical assessment of latest technology SiPM integrated digital PETCT scanner. Radiography 2023; 29 (04) 705-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Matheoud R, Boellaard R, Pike L. et al. EFOMP's protocol quality controls in PET/CT and PET/MR. Phys Med 2023; 105: 102506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Koole M, Armstrong I, Krizsan AK, Stromvall A, Visvikis D, Sattler B, Nekolla SG, Dickson J. EANM guidelines for PET-CT and PET-MR routine quality control. J Med Phys 2023; 33 (01) 103-113
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Board AE. AERB. Regulation 2012;2(03):
    Google Scholar