available at extra cost: Multifix Chisel Holder with 4 Bolts Bison Three-Claw Bison Four-Claw Digital Readout Easson, Mitutoyo or Sony Frequency Controlled Speed ​​in 3 Mechanical Steps 25-2300 RPM Rotating Center, Chuck, Adapter Sleeves

Keller, S.H., Jakoby, B., Hansen, A.E. et al. Cross calibration of the Siemens mMR: easily acquired accurate PET phantom measurements, long term stability and reproducibility. EJNMMI Phys 2 (Suppl 1), A28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/2197-7364-2-S1-A28

By using this website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions, Your US state privacy rights, Privacy statement and Cookies policy. Your privacy choices/Manage cookies we use in the preference centre.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

We present a quick and easy method to perform quantitatively accurate PET scans of typical water-filled PET plastic shell phantoms on the Siemens mMR PET/MR scanner. We perform regular cross calibrations (Xcals) of our PET scanners, including the Siemens mMR PET/MR, with a Siemens mCT water phantom. We evaluate the mMR cross calibration stability over a 3-year period. Recently, the mMR software (VB20P) offered the option of using predefined μ-maps. We evaluated this option by using either the predefined μ-map of the long mMR water phantom or a system-integrated user defined CT-based μ-map of the mCT water phantom used for Xcal. On 54 cross calibrations that were acquired over 3 years, the mMR on average underestimated the concentration by 16% due to the use of MR-based μ-maps. The mMR produced the narrowest range and lowest standard deviation of the Xcal ratios, implying it and is the most stable of the 6 scanners included in this study over a 3 year period. With correctly segmented μ-maps, the mMR produced Xcal ratios of 1.00-1.02, well within the acceptance range [0.95-1.05]. Measuring the concentration in a centrally placed cylindrical VOI allows for some robustness against misregistration of the μ-maps but it should be no more than a few millimeters in the x-y plane, while the tolerance is larger on the z-axis (when, as always with PET, keeping clear of the axial edges of the FOV). The mMR is the most stable scanner in this study and the mean underestimation is no longer an issue with the easily accessible μ-map, which in all 7 tests resulted in correct Xcal ratios. We will share the user defined μ-map of the mCT phantom and the protocol with interested mMR users.

equipped with: Chisel Holder Steel Three-Claw Round 250mm Cast Iron Four Claw Round 300mm Fixed Glasses Running Glasses Bedstop Threading Clock Cooling Installation