Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-s676w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T23:11:40.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Nuclear medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2011

By
Suleman Surti  and
Joel S. Karp
Edited by
R. Nick Bryan
R. Nick Bryan
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Physics

The modern structure of an atom was first described in 1932 by Niels Bohr with the shell model. In this model, the electrons revolve in stable orbits, or shells, around a positive core, the nucleus. The nucleus, which consists of positively charged protons and electrically neutral neutrons, is the source of gamma rays used in nuclear imaging. In terms of size, the atom is of the order of 10–8 cm while the nucleus is about five orders of magnitude smaller at 10–13 cm. The most successful model used to describe the nucleus is a shell model analogous to the shell model of the atom, except instead of electrons we now have protons and neutrons. The shell model of the nucleus has been used to describe the discrete energy levels present in nuclei depending upon the physical state of the protons and neutrons.

The nucleus has two fundamental forces which determine its stability, the repulsive Coulomb (electromagnetic) force between the same-charge protons, and an attractive strong nuclear force between all neutrons and protons. The strength of these two forces depends upon the number of neutrons (N) and protons (Z) present in the nucleus. We find that in stable light nuclei the number of neutrons and protons is about the same, whereas in heavier nuclei the number of neutrons to provide nuclear stability is larger than the number of protons.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Introduction to the Science of Medical Imaging , pp. 117 - 132
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cherry, SR, Shao, Y, Silverman, RW, et al. MicroPET: a high resolution PET scanner for imaging small animals. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1997; 44: 1161–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, SI, Pichler, BJ, Boening, G, et al. A prototype high-resolution animal positron tomograph with avalanche photodiode arrays and LSO crystals. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 136–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anger, HO. Gamma ray and positron scintillation camera. Nucleonics 1963; 21: 10–56.Google Scholar
Adam, , Karp, JS, Daube-Witherspoon, ME, Smith, RJ. Performance of a whole-body PET scanner using curve-plate NaI(Tl) detectors. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1821–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Surti, S, Karp, JS, Freifelder, R, Liu, F. Optimizing the performance of a PET detector using discrete GSO crystals on a continuous lightguide. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2000; 47: 1030–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, JS, Surti, S, Daube-Witherspoon, ME, et al. Performance of a brain PET camera based on Anger-logic gadolinium oxylorthosilicate detectors. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 1340–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Surti, S, Karp, JS. Imaging characteristics of a 3-dimensional GSO whole-body PET camera. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1040–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Surti, S, Karp, JS, Perkins, AE, et al. Imaging performance of A-PET: a small animal PET camera. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2005; 24: 844–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey, ME, Nutt, R. A multicrystal two dimensional BGO detector system for positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1986; 33: 460–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wienhard, K, Eriksson, L, Grootoonk, S, et al. Performance evaluation of the positron scanner ECAT EXACT. J Comput Assist Tomog 1992; 16: 804–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wienhard, K, Dahlbom, M, Eriksson, L, et al. The ECAT EXACT HR: performance of a new high resolution positron scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994; 18: 110–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brix, G, Zaers, J, Adam, , et al. Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1614–23.Google ScholarPubMed
DeGrado, TR, Turkington, T, Williams, JJ, et al. Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med 1994; 35: 1398–406.Google ScholarPubMed
Brambilla, M, Secco, C, Dominietto, M, et al. Performance characteristics obtained for a new 3-dimensional lutetium oxylorthosilicate-based whole-body PET/CT scanner with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 2083–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Kemp, BJ, Kim, C, Williams, JJ, Ganin, A, Lowe, VJ. NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 1960–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Wong, WH, Uribe, J, Hicks, K, Hu, G.An analog decoding BGO block detector using circular photomultipliers. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1995; 42: 1095–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehllehner, G, Wetzel, RA. Section imaging by computer calculation. J Nucl Med 1971; 12: 76–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, , Edwards, RQ, Ricci, AR, Reivich, M.Quantitative section scanning using orthogonal tangent correction. J Nucl Med 1973; 14: 196–200.Google ScholarPubMed
Phelps, ME, Hoffman, EJ, Mullani, NA, Higgins, CS, Terpogossian, MM. Design considerations for a positron emission transaxial tomograph (PETT III). IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1976; 23: 516–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terpogossian, MM, Mullani, NA, Hood, J, Higgins, CS, Currie, CM. A multislice positron emission computed tomograph (PETT IV) yielding transverse and longitudinal images. Radiology 1978; 128: 477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehllehner, G, Buchin, MP, Dudek, JH. Performance parameters of a positron imaging camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1976; 23: 528–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colsher, JG. Fully three-dimensional positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 1980; 25: 103–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinahan, PE, Rogers, JG. Analytic 3D image-reconstruction using all detected events. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1989; 36: 964–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matej, S, Lewitt, RM. 3D-FRP: direct Fourier reconstruction with Fourier reprojection for fully 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2001; 48: 1378–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daube-Witherspoon, ME, Muehllehner, G. Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med 1987; 28: 1717–24.Google ScholarPubMed
Defrise, M, Kinahan, PE, Townsend, DW, et al. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1997; 16: 145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, HM, Larkin, RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 1994; 13: 601–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reader, AJ, Ally, S, Bakatselos, F, et al. One-pass list-mode EM algorithm for high resolution 3-D PET image reconstruction into large arrays. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2002; 49: 693–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strother, SC, Casey, ME, Hoffman, EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating count rates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1990; 37: 783–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, DL, Thomas, LJ, Terpogossian, MM. A mathematical model for positron-emission tomography systems having time-of-flight measurements. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1981; 28: 3575–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budinger, TF. Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med 1983; 24: 73–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewellen, TK. Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med 1998; 28: 268–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surti, S, Kuhn, A, Werner, ME, et al. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 471–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Conti, M, Bendriem, B, Casey, M, et al. First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 4507–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daube-Witherspoon, ME, Surti, S, Perkins, AE, et al. Imaging performance of a LaBr3-based TOF-PET scanner. Paper presented at 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, 2008; Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×