| Question 1: All of the following degrading factors can have routinely-applied correction algorithms. Some can be reduced in the PET design. Which degrading factor cannot be circumvented with PET design? |
| Reference: | Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine (4th edition). 2012. Saunders Elsevier |
| Choice A: | Attenuation. |
| Choice B: | Scattered background. |
| Choice C: | Randoms background. |
| Choice D: | Dead Time. |
| Question 2: Why are there no TOF PET systems with bismuth germanate detectors? |
| Reference: | Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine (4th edition). 2012. Saunders Elsevier |
| Choice A: | It would be too expensive. |
| Choice B: | Bismuth germanate is no longer available. |
| Choice C: | The effective atomic number is too high. |
| Choice D: | The scintillation light cannot be measured with sufficient timing resolution. |
| Question 3: Can TOF images be noisier than non-TOF images? |
| Reference: | Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine (4th edition). 2012. Saunders Elsevier |
| Choice A: | No. TOF images are always better than non-TOF images. |
| Choice B: | Yes. TOF images are always noisier than non-TOF images. |
| Choice C: | Yes. TOF only pertains to image resolution, and doesn't affect noise. |
| Choice D: | Yes. It depends on the reconstruction parameters used for the TOF and non-TOF images. |
| Question 4: Compared to conventional photo-multiplier PET systems, spatial resolution of the SiPM digital photon counting PET system is NOT affected by: |
| Reference: | WW Moses. Fundamental Limits of Spatial Resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011 Aug 21; 648 Supplement 1: S236–S240
Jun Zhang, Michael V Knopp etc. Effect of next generation SiPM digital photon counting PET technology on effective system spatial resolution. SNMMI 2017 June 13; Denver, USA
|
| Choice A: | Crystal size. |
| Choice B: | Positron Range. |
| Choice C: | Noncollinearity / Acollinearity. |
| Choice D: | Localization decoding. |
| Question 5: For a 48cm diameter object, an estimated sensitivity gain and the SNR improvement of the digital photon counting TOF PET (320ps, 4.8cm uncertainty) compared to nonTOF PET are about : |
| Reference: | Karp JS. Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME and Muehllehner G. Advances in Time-Of-Flight PET. Phys Med, 32(1): 12-22.
Budinger TF. Time-of-Flight Positron Emission Tomography - Status Relative to Conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983;24(1):73–76.
|
| Choice A: | 5.0 and 5.0 |
| Choice B: | 10.0 and 10.0 |
| Choice C: | 10.0 and 3.2 |
| Choice D: | 10.0 and 5.0 |
| Question 6: The timing resolution on the digital PET/CT scanners from GE is in the range of: |
| Reference: | Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016 May;43(5):2334. |
| Choice A: | 250-350 ps. |
| Choice B: | 350-450 ps. |
| Choice C: | 450-550 ps. |
| Choice D: | Depends on the number of block rings. |
| Question 7: The sensitivity of GE PET/CT scanners with the same number of detector rings: |
| Reference: | Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodríguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Martí-Climent JM. Performance Characteristics of the Whole-Body Discovery IQ PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2017 Jul;58(7):1155-1161.
Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016 May;43(5):2334.
|
| Choice A: | Is higher for digital compared to conventional detectors systems. |
| Choice B: | Is lower for digital compared to conventional detector systems. |
| Choice C: | Is about the same for digital compared to conventional detector systems.. |
| Choice D: | Is independent of the detector system. |
| Question 8: Why is LSO or LYSO commonly used as a detector material in PET/CT scanners, rather than NaI(Tl), as commonly used in SPECT? |
| Reference: | Vandenberghe et al. Time-of-flight PET: a review of different benefits and recent developments in time-of-flight PET. Euro J Nucl Med, 3: Dec 2015. |
| Choice A: | The energy resolution is better at 511 keV to improve scatter rejection. |
| Choice B: | The timing resolution is better and enables TOF imaging. |
| Choice C: | The detector can be used for both PET as well as CT, thereby enabling PET/CT scanners. |
| Choice D: | It is less a less expensive scintillation material. |
| Question 9: Which of the following are advantages of silicon photo-multipliers compared to conventional photo-multipliers? |
| Reference: | Surti S, Karp JS. Advances in Time-Of-Flight PET. Phys Med, 32(1): 12-22, Jan 2016. |
| Choice A: | They can be incorporated into PET/MR scanners. |
| Choice B: | They can be used in TOF PET/CT scanners. |
| Choice C: | They are significantly less expensive. |
| Choice D: | All of the above. |
| Question 10: Improved time-of-flight resolution leads to which of the following? |
| Reference: | Surti S. Update on Time-of-Flight PET Imaging. J Nucl Med, 56(1): 98-105, Jan 2015. |
| Choice A: | Improved spatial resolution. |
| Choice B: | Increased scan counts. |
| Choice C: | Improved image signal-to-noise. |
| Choice D: | All of the above. |
