基于曲线拟合法与算术平均法计算双探头SPECT旋转中心漂移值的比较

doi:10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2019.01.013

中国辐射卫生

2019, Vol. 28

Issue (1): 47-51 DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2019.01.013

医疗照射/论著

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

基于曲线拟合法与算术平均法计算双探头SPECT旋转中心漂移值的比较

张雨, 刘辉, 宋颖, 郭朝晖, 刘雅, 程金生

中国疾病预防控制中心辐射防护与核安全医学所, 北京 100088

Comparison of double probe SPECT rotation center drift values evaluated by the curve fitting method and arithmetic mean method

ZHANG Yu, LIU Hui, SONG Ying, GUO Zhaohui, LIU Ya, CHENG Jinsheng

National Institute for Radiological Protection, China CDC, Beijing 100088 China

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (4)

全文: PDF (712 KB) HTML ( )
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的研究基于曲线拟合法与算术平均法计算单光子发射计算机断层成像（SPECT）设备探头旋转中心漂移值的差异性。方法选取3个厂家的9台SPECT设备，每台设备都分别用曲线拟合法与算术平均法计算探头旋转中心漂移值，比较两种计算方法计算结果的差异性。同时将探头按照厂家分组，根据各厂家规定的合格值，将两种计算方法的结果与厂家自带软件计算的结果进行比较。结果一共13个探头的13组数据中，两种计算方法计算结果之间数据差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），两种计算方法计算结果分别与厂家计算结果之间比较，数据差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两种计算方法计算结果分别与厂家计算结果相比，通过性均一致。结论两种方法均能为旋转中心漂移的检测提供参考。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	张雨
	刘辉
	宋颖
	郭朝晖
	刘雅
	程金生

关键词 ：单光子发射计算机断层成像, 旋转中心, 曲线拟合法, 算术平均法

收稿日期: 2018-12-12

PACS:

R811.1

通讯作者: 程金生,E-mail:chengjs3393@163.com E-mail: chengjs3393@163.com

作者简介: 张雨(1993-),女,侗族,贵州人,硕士,从事放射诊疗仪器的质量控制研究与辐射防护相关工作。E-mail:xiaoyu_usst@163.com

引用本文:

张雨, 刘辉, 宋颖, 郭朝晖, 刘雅, 程金生. 基于曲线拟合法与算术平均法计算双探头SPECT旋转中心漂移值的比较[J]. 中国辐射卫生, 2019, 28(1): 47-51.
ZHANG Yu, LIU Hui, SONG Ying, GUO Zhaohui, LIU Ya, CHENG Jinsheng. Comparison of double probe SPECT rotation center drift values evaluated by the curve fitting method and arithmetic mean method. , 2019, 28(1): 47-51.

链接本文:

http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2019.01.013 或 http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/Y2019/V28/I1/47

[1] Pacilio M, Lauri C, Prosperi D, et al. New SPECT and PET Radiopharmaceuticals for Imaging Inflammatory Diseases:A Meta-analysis of the Last 10 Years[J]. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 2018, 48(3):261-276.
[2] Zeng G L, Gagnon D. CdZnTe strip detector SPECT imaging with a slit collimator[J]. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2004, 49(11):2257-2271.
[3] Jaszczak R J, Coleman R E, Whitehead F R, et al. Physical Factors Affecting Quantitative Measurements Using Camera-Based Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (Spect)[J]. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 1981, 28(1):69-80.
[4] 张永学.核医学[M].北京:科学出版社,2003.
[5] Dezarn W A. Quality assurance issues for therapeutic application of radioactive microspheres.[J]. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2008, 71(1).
[6] International Atomic Energy Agency, Quality Assurance for SPECT Systems[S].Vienna:IAEA Human Health Series No. 6, IAEA, 2009.
[7] American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Rotating Scintillation Camera SPECT Acceptance Testing and Quality Contro[S].New YORK:AAPM report no.22, AAPM, 1987.
[8] National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Performance Measurements Pf Gamma Cameras, NEMA Standards Publication Nu 1-2007, NEMA, rosslyn(2007).
[9] Zhou Y F, Tham L G, Yan R W M, et al. The mechanism of soil failures along cracks subjected to water infiltration[J]. Computers & Geotechnics, 2014, 55(2):330-341.
[10] Massey C I, Petley D N, Mcsaveney M J. Patterns of movement in reactivated landslides[J]. Engineering Geology, 2013, 159(12):1-19.
[11] Blue P W. Accuracy of Center of Rotation Determination for SPECT Imaging[J]. 1989.
[12] Harkness BA, Rogers WL, Clinthorne NJ, et al. SPECT:Quality control procedures and artifact identification. J Nuc/Med Techno/1983; Ⅱ:55-60.
[13] 国家质量监督检验检疫总局. GB 18988.2-2013放射性核素成像设备性能和试验规则第2部分:单光子发射计算机断层装备[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2013.
[14] Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR:comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses[J]. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2012, 53(6):845.
[15] Ljungberg M. Absolute Quantitation of SPECT Studies[J]. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 2018, 48(4):348.
[16] Livieratos L. Technical Pitfalls and Limitations of SPECT/CT[J]. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 2015, 45(6):530-540.