PET/CT acceptance testing and quality assurance: Executive summary of AAPM Task Group 126 Report

Purpose A Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography quality assurance program is necessary to ensure that patients receive optimal imaging and care. We summarize the AAPM Task Group (TG) 126 report on acceptance and quality assurance (QA) testing of PET/CT systems. Methods TG 126 was charged...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2021-02, Vol.48 (2), p.e31-e35
Hauptverfasser: Lopez, Benjamin P., Jordan, David W., Kemp, Brad J., Kinahan, Paul E., Schmidtlein, Charles R., Mawlawi, Osama R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose A Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography quality assurance program is necessary to ensure that patients receive optimal imaging and care. We summarize the AAPM Task Group (TG) 126 report on acceptance and quality assurance (QA) testing of PET/CT systems. Methods TG 126 was charged with developing PET/CT acceptance testing and QA procedures. The TG aimed to develop procedures that would allow for standardized evaluation of existing short‐axis cylindrical‐bore PET/CT systems in the spirit of NEMA NU 2 standards without requiring specialized phantoms or proprietary software tools. Results We outline eight performance evaluations using common phantoms and freely available software whereby the clinical physicist monitors each PET/CT system by comparing periodic Follow‐Up Measurements to Baseline Measurements acquired during acceptance testing. For each of the eight evaluations, we also summarize the expected testing time and materials necessary and the recommended pass/fail criteria. Conclusion Our report provides a guideline for periodic evaluations of most clinical PET/CT systems that simplifies procedures and requirements outlined by other agencies and will facilitate performance comparisons across vendors, models, and institutions.
ISSN:0094-2405
2473-4209
DOI:10.1002/mp.14656