SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2011; 52 (Supplement 1):320
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fürst, S.
Right arrow Articles by Schwaiger, M.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fürst, S.
Right arrow Articles by Schwaiger, M.

Instrumentation & Data Analysis: Instrumentation

Instrumentation I: Detector Technology and Imaging Systems

Initial performance evaluation of the Biograph mMR

Sebastian Fürst1, Gaspar Delso1, Axel Martínez-Möller1, Bjoern Jakoby3, Frederic Schoenahl3, Carl Ganter2, Stephan Nekolla1, Sibylle Ziegler1, Ernst Rummeny2 and Markus Schwaiger1

1 Nuclear Medicine, TUM, München, Germany 2 Radiology, TUM, München, Germany 3 Healthcare, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany

Abstract No. 320

Objectives: The first fully integrated MR/PET system for clinical use has recently been released (Biograph mMR). The goal was to assess the physical performance in comparison with the PET/CT Biograph TruePoint TrueV (BioT) and to evaluate the impact of simultaneous operation on either modality.

Methods: The mMR is based on a 3T magnet and APD-LSO block detectors. A complete set of measurements was conducted following the NEMA NU 2-2007 protocol. For the image quality test, a synthetic attenuation map had to be used due to the resonant response of the standard thoracic phantom to radiofrequency (RF) fields. Sensitivity and spatial resolution tests were also performed with MRI sequences (VIBE, PASL) running. RF noise measurements were performed in three situations: With the PET powered off, on and in presence of activity. Homogeneity of the static B0 and RF fields was compared to that of a Magnetom Verio (3T).

Results: As expected, the longer axial FOV (mMR: 25.8cm, BioT: 21.8cm) and the reduced detector ring diameter (mMR: 65.6cm, BioT: 84.2cm) lead to higher count rates and an increased sensitivity of >1.25% (BioT: 0.8%) with and without an MRI scan running simultaneously. The narrower energy window (mMR: 430-610keV, BioT: 425-650keV) limits the increase of scatter counts, leading to considerably higher noise equivalent count rates and a scatter fraction of 36% (BioT: 33%). The average spatial resolution of the mMR was measured to be 4.0mm FWHM near the centre of the FOV (BioT: 4.4mm). The spectrum of the three RF noise measurements matched within 2% and showed no spikes. The B0 field homogeneity was <1ppm in a 22cm sphere. Flip angle differences of <5° were observed independently of PET activity. Both values are comparable to the ones obtained with the Verio.

Conclusions: These first results indicate that integration of APD-PET technology and 3T MRI allows simultaneous whole-body imaging without performance limitations in comparison to state-of-the-art MR and PET instrumentation.

Research Support: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fürst, S.
Right arrow Articles by Schwaiger, M.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fürst, S.
Right arrow Articles by Schwaiger, M.