% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{SalvadorRibs:300294,
      author       = {C. Salvador-Ribés and C. Soler-Pons and M. J.
                      Sánchez-García and T. Fechter$^*$ and C. Olivas and I.
                      Torres-Espallardo and J. Pérez-Calatayud and D. Baltas$^*$
                      and M. Mix and L. Martí-Bonmatí and M. Carles},
      title        = {{O}pen-source phantom with dedicated in-house software for
                      image quality assurance in hybrid {PET} systems.},
      journal      = {EJNMMI Physics},
      volume       = {12},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2197-7364},
      address      = {Heidelberg},
      publisher    = {SpringerOpen},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-00747},
      pages        = {35},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {Patients' diagnosis, treatment and follow-up increasingly
                      rely on multimodality imaging. One of the main limitations
                      for the optimal implementation of hybrid systems in clinical
                      practice is the time and expertise required for applying
                      standardized protocols for equipment quality assurance (QA).
                      Experimental phantoms are commonly used for this purpose,
                      but they are often limited to a single modality and single
                      quality parameter, lacking automated analysis capabilities.
                      In this study, we developed a multimodal 3D-printed phantom
                      and software for QA in positron emission tomography (PET)
                      hybrid systems, with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic
                      resonance (MR), by assessing signal, spatial resolution,
                      radiomic features, co-registration and geometric
                      distortions.Phantom models and Python software for the
                      proposed QA are available to download, and a user-friendly
                      plugin compatible with the open-source 3D-Slicer software
                      has been developed. The QA viability was proved by
                      characterizing a Philips-Gemini-TF64-PET/CT in terms of
                      signal response (mean, µ), intrinsic variability for three
                      consecutive measurements (daily variation coefficient, CoVd)
                      and reproducibility over time (variation coefficient across
                      5 months, CoVm). For this system, averaged recovery
                      coefficient for activity concentration was µ = 0.90 ± 0.08
                      (CoVd = $0.6\%,$ CoVm = $9\%)$ in volumes ranging from 7 to
                      42 ml. CT calibration-curve averaged over time was HU = (
                      951 ± 12 ) × density - ( 944 ± 15 ) with variability of
                      slope and y-intercept of (CoVd = $0.4\%,$ CoVm = $1.2\%)$
                      and (CoVd = $0.4\%,$ CoVm = $1.6\%),$ respectively.
                      Radiomics reproducibility resulted in (CoVd = $18\%,$ CoVm =
                      $30\%)$ for PET and (CoVd = $15\%,$ CoVm = $22\%)$ for CT.
                      Co-registration was assessed by Dice-Similarity-Coefficient
                      (DSC) along 37.8 cm in superior-inferior (z) direction (well
                      registered if DSC ≥ 0.91 and Δz ≤ 2 mm), resulting in
                      3/7 days well co-registered. Applicability to other scanners
                      was additionally proved with Philips-Vereos-PET/CT (V),
                      Siemens-Biograph-Vison-600-PET/CT (S) and GE-SIGNA-PET/MR
                      (G). PET concentration accuracy was (µ = 0.86, CoVd =
                      $0.3\%)$ for V, (µ = 0.87, CoVd = $0.8\%)$ for S, and (µ =
                      1.10, CoVd = $0.34\%)$ for G. MR(T2) was well co-registered
                      with PET in 3/4 cases, did not show significant distortion
                      within a transaxial diameter of 27.8 cm and along 37 cm in
                      z, and its radiomic variability was CoVd =
                      $13\%.Open-source$ QA protocol for PET hybrid systems has
                      been presented and its general applicability has been
                      proved. This package facilitates simultaneously simple and
                      semi-automated evaluation for various imaging modalities,
                      providing a complete and efficient QA solution.},
      keywords     = {3D-printing (Other) / Experimental phantoms (Other) /
                      Medical imaging (Other) / Oncology (Other) / PET/CT (Other)
                      / PET/MR (Other) / Quality assurance (Other) / Radiotherapy
                      (Other)},
      cin          = {FR01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)FR01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40192938},
      doi          = {10.1186/s40658-025-00741-8},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/300294},
}