Skip to main content
  • Main menu
  • User menu
  • Search
  • English ▼
    • English
    • Afrikaans
    • Albanian
    • Amharic
    • Arabic
    • Armenian
    • Azerbaijani
    • Basque
    • Belarusian
    • Bengali
    • Bosnian
    • Bulgarian
    • Catalan
    • Cebuano
    • Chichewa
    • Chinese (Simplified)
    • Chinese (Traditional)
    • Corsican
    • Croatian
    • Czech
    • Danish
    • Dutch
    • Esperanto
    • Estonian
    • Filipino
    • Finnish
    • French
    • Frisian
    • Galician
    • Georgian
    • German
    • Greek
    • Gujarati
    • Haitian Creole
    • Hausa
    • Hawaiian
    • Hebrew
    • Hindi
    • Hmong
    • Hungarian
    • Icelandic
    • Igbo
    • Indonesian
    • Irish
    • Italian
    • Japanese
    • Javanese
    • Kannada
    • Kazakh
    • Khmer
    • Korean
    • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
    • Kyrgyz
    • Lao
    • Latin
    • Latvian
    • Lithuanian
    • Luxembourgish
    • Macedonian
    • Malagasy
    • Malay
    • Malayalam
    • Maltese
    • Maori
    • Marathi
    • Mongolian
    • Myanmar (Burmese)
    • Nepali
    • Norwegian
    • Pashto
    • Persian
    • Polish
    • Portuguese
    • Punjabi
    • Romanian
    • Russian
    • Samoan
    • Scottish Gaelic
    • Serbian
    • Sesotho
    • Shona
    • Sindhi
    • Sinhala
    • Slovak
    • Slovenian
    • Somali
    • Spanish
    • Sudanese
    • Swahili
    • Swedish
    • Tajik
    • Tamil
    • Telugu
    • Thai
    • Turkish
    • Ukrainian
    • Urdu
    • Uzbek
    • Vietnamese
    • Welsh
    • Xhosa
    • Yiddish
    • Yoruba
    • Zulu

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

English ▼
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scottish Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sudanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleQuality & Practice Management

Decay Correction for Quantitative Myocardial PET Perfusion in Established PET Scanners: A Potentially Overlooked Source of Errors

Robert Bober
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology December 2021, 49 (4) 344-349; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.121.262320
Robert Bober
John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, and Ochsner Clinical School, Queensland University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Decay of 18F in 500-cm3 beaker. A detailed 18F protocol (“Fluorine Decay Correction.docx”) and worksheet (“F18 Decay Correction Worksheet.xlsx”) can be found in the supplemental materials. With syringe, 153.18 MBq of 18F were placed in beaker containing 500 cm3 of H2O. Accounting for residual activity in transfer syringe and elapsed time between dose calibrator measurement and start of scan, concentration of 18F at start of scan was 0.270 MBq/cm3. Scanner performed 2,400-s (40 min) list-mode acquisition. Twenty-four hours later, after all activity decayed, attenuation scanning was performed and 5 serial frames were generated at intervals of 300, 300, 300, 600, and 900 s. ROIs were placed, avoiding beaker boundaries. Activity at time t equaled initial activity × e(−0.693 × t/(half-life of radiotracer). Therefore, with starting activity of 0.270 MBq/cm3, expected activity at 150 s into scan (midpoint of first frame) is 0.266 MBq/cm3. Half-life of 18F is 6,600 s, and 0.270 MBq/cm3 × e (−6.93 × 150 s/6,600s) = 0.266 MBq/cm3. Concentration of ROI in first frame was 0.266 MBq/cm3, which is 0.1% bias from dose calibrator. Concentrations in each subsequent frame were nearly identical to first frame, with biases all within 3% window. There are several conclusions. First, scanner decay-corrects activity to midpoint of first frame. Second, scanner also corrects for duration of each frame, giving activity in MBq/cm3. Third, in biologic systems, only variation in quantitative activity after first frame would be due to physiologic changes and not imaging timing, duration, or decay. Bias from dose calibrator of first frame, also known as efficiency, is inconsequential to measurements of MBF as it cancels out in numerator and denominator of flow equations (6). Bias does inform us on whether test was performed with accurate timing, random, scatter, and dead-time corrections and also on whether camera system was internally calibrated for isotope against standard. If timing of beaker decay test is not precise or camera has not been calibrated, measured concentration could be significantly different from dose calibrator; however, if DC is performed correctly, bias of subsequent frames will be uniform.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Decay of 13N in 500-cm3 beaker. A detailed 13N protocol (“Nitrogen Decay Correction.docx”) and worksheet (“13N Decay Correction Worksheet.xlsx”) can be found in the supplemental materials. Similar to Figure 1, 348.91 MBq of 13N were placed a beaker containing precisely 500 cm3 of H2O. Scanner performed 600-s (10 min) list-mode acquisition. Two hours later, after all activity decayed, attenuation scanning was performed and 5 serial frames were generated at intervals of 60, 60, 120, 120, and 240 s. Calculations and measurements were as shown in Figure 1. There are several conclusions. First, scanner decay-corrects activity to midpoint of first frame. Second, scanner also corrects for duration of each frame, giving activity in MBq/cm3. Third, in biologic systems, only variation in quantitative activity after first frame would be due to physiologic changes and not imaging timing, duration, or decay.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Decay of 82Rb in 500 cm3 beaker. A detailed 82Rb protocol (“Rubidium Decay Correction.docx”) and worksheet (“82Rb Decay Correction Worksheet.xlsx”) can be found in the supplemental materials. Similar to Figures 1 and 2, 1,073 MBq of 82Rb were placed in a beaker with a total volume precisely 500 cm3 (H2O plus 82Rb eluate). Scanner performed 720-s (12 min) list-mode acquisition. Ten minutes later, after all activity decayed, attenuation scanning was performed and 3 serial frames were generated at intervals of 120, 300, and 300 s. Calculations and measurements were as shown in Figure 1. There are several conclusions. First, scanner decay-corrects activity to midpoint of first frame. Second, scanner also corrects for duration of each frame, giving activity in MBq/cm3. Third, in biologic systems, only variation in quantitative activity after first frame would be due to physiologic changes and not imaging timing, duration, or decay.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Similar to Figures 1--3, decay beaker testing, using 18F, was performed on 2D refurbished PET camera when there was concern about accuracy of MBF data. Scanner performed 2,400-s (40 min) list-mode acquisition, and attenuation scans were obtained. Five serial frames were generated. ROI concentration continued to decrease over time and over varying frame durations. There are 2 conclusions. First, scanner does not decay-correct activity to midpoint of first frame or correct for frame duration. Second, in biologic systems, variation in quantitative activity is partly due to inadequate DC or frame duration, which cannot be differentiated from physiologic changes. Therefore, measurement of MBF will not be accurate.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Figure demonstrates relative and quantitative perfusion data of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) territory obtained from a refurbished 2D PET system where decay correction (DC), as part of the default settings within the camera, was performed incorrectly (left column). After recognition of the error, the DC algorithm was corrected and the study reprocessed. 5A and 5B represent rest and stress relative perfusion images, respectively. Both sets of relative images (incorrect and correct DC) are normal and appear nearly identical. 5C and 5D demonstrate inaccurate and accurate DC of rest and stress absolute perfusion in cc/min/g, respectively. With correct DC, rest and stress MBF are ∼30% and ∼55% lower, respectively. 5E and 5F demonstrate the coronary flow capacity (CFC) maps derived by the integration of absolute flow metrics of the incorrect and correct DC datasets, respectively. With incorrect DC, CFC maps suggest physiology consistent with healthy volunteers without risk factors. However, with correct DC, CFC maps are consistent with mild diffuse epicardial disease for which medical therapy is appropriate. Based on CFC maps, treatment would possibly be different based on the absolute perfusion metrics.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
    • Supplemental Data
    • Supplemental Data
    • Supplemental Data
    • Supplemental Data
    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 49 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 49, Issue 4
December 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Share
Decay Correction for Quantitative Myocardial PET Perfusion in Established PET Scanners: A Potentially Overlooked Source of Errors
Robert Bober
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2021, 49 (4) 344-349; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.262320
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • BASICS OF QUANTITATIVE PET PERFUSION
    • RATIONALE FOR DC ON QUANTIFICATION OF MBF
    • UNDERSTANDING PET SCANNER DC
    • TESTING DC
    • CASE EXAMPLES
    • THE RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATE DC ALGORITHMS
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of PSMA PET/CT on the Use of Bone Scintigraphy for Prostate Cancer at a University Hospital System
  • 90Y SIR-Spheres Activity Measurement with New SIROS D-Vial Delivery Kit
Show more Quality & Practice Management

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • image processing
  • PET
  • decay correction
  • myocardial blood flow
  • positron emission tomography
  • arterial input function
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire
Alerts for this Article
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email this Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Decay Correction for Quantitative Myocardial PET Perfusion in Established PET Scanners: A Potentially Overlooked Source of Errors
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Decay Correction for Quantitative Myocardial PET Perfusion in Established PET Scanners: A Potentially Overlooked Source of Errors
Robert Bober
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2021, 49 (4) 344-349; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.262320

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.