摘要1

目的：评价PoleStar m660型PET/CT成像系统性能以及临床应用的有效性和安全性。

方法：按照NEMA2007标准对设备进行空间分辨率、散射分数、计数损失和偶然符合测量、灵敏度和图像质量、衰减校正与散射校正精确性四项检测，评估设备性能。评价融合的PET和CT图像质量及定位患者体内的放射性药物分布情况及仪器基本使用情况和其临床应用的安全性，评估图像质量优良率。

结果：Ⅰ级图像质量占91.875%，Ⅱ级图像质量占8.125%，Ⅲ级图像质量为0%，由此可得图像质量优良率为100%，高于目标值85%，空间分辨率半高宽最小值为3.64mm，浓度在29kBq/ml时NECR峰值为224kcps，真符合率峰值为836kcps，中心视野处系统灵敏度为10.7kcps/Mcps（1.07%），偏移中心视野10cm处系统灵敏度为10.4 kcps/Mcps（1.04%），靶本底比为8：1时，热球与冷球的对比度各随体积增大而增大，本底变化率随球体积增大而减小。在仪器使用各方面均为优，试验过程中无不良事件和严重不良事件发生。

结论：江苏赛诺格兰医疗科技有限公司提供的PoleStar m660型PET/CT成像系统，通过临床验证，能达到预期性能要求，其有效性和安全性均可以适用于临床诊断需求。

摘要2

目的：通过PET自由呼吸门控方法与传统呼吸门控方法的比较，研究自由呼吸门控技术的价值。

方法：选取容积为11.49ml的球体，灌注浓度为2.85MBq/ml的¹⁸F-FDG溶液，先后用ANZAI呼吸门控方法和自由呼吸门控方法，单床位采集3min，重复实验5次。选取容积分别为26.52ml、11.49ml、5.57ml、1.15ml的球体，灌注相同浓度的¹⁸F-FDG溶液，先后用ANZAI呼吸门控方法和自由呼吸门控方法于4个不同时间点进行单床位3min采集。选取20名肺部病灶患者，先后用两种门控方法采集单床位3min，对数据进行比较分析。

结果：ANZAI门控采集方法与自由呼吸采集方法测得体积、平均浓度及最大浓度数据无统计学意义（t=0.66，t=-0.62，t=-0.01，P＞0.05）；两种方法门控触发信号完全一致。相同浓度时，体积越小，呼吸门控方法效果越好；不同浓度时，体积越小，呼吸门控方法效果越好。大于2cm³的病灶，门控方法的SUV_max≦非门控方法SUV_max，小于2cm³的病灶，门控方法的SUV_max>非门控方法SUV_max。

结论：自由呼吸门控采集方法测量准确可靠，无需外接设备，操作简便，门控信号稳定，优于传统呼吸门控采集方法，适合应用为常规临床呼吸门控采集方法。对于越小的病灶，呼吸门控比非呼吸门控技术优势越大，临床常规开展呼吸门控方法的检查有利于小病灶的检出率。

Abstract 1

Purpose: To evaluate the performance and safety of the PoleStar m660 PET/CT imaging system and its clinical application.

Method: Equipment performance was evaluated in accordance with the NEMA 2007 standard for spatial resolution, scattering fraction, count loss, and accidental compliance measurements, sensitivity and image quality, attenuation correction, and scatter correction accuracy. Evaluate the quality of the fusion PET and CT images and locate the distribution of radiopharmaceuticals in the patient, the basic use of the instrument and the safety of its clinical application, and evaluate the image quality.

Result: Grade I image quality accounts for 91.875%, Grade II image quality accounts for 8.125%, and Grade III image quality is 0%, resulting in an image quality excellent rate of 100%, higher than the target value of 85%, and the spatial resolution of half width and width is minimum. The value is 3.64mm, the NECR peak value is 224kcps at 29kBq/ml, the true coincidence rate is 836kcps, the system sensitivity at the central field of view is 10.7kcps/Mcps （1.07%）, and the system sensitivity at the offset center field of view is 10.4 kcps/ At Mcps （1.04%）, when the target ratio is 8:1, the contrast between the hot bulb and the cold bulb increases with the volume, and the background change rate decreases as the sphere volume increases. It is excellent in all aspects of instrument use, and no adverse events or serious adverse events occur during the test.

Conclusion: The PoleStar m660 PET/CT imaging system provided by Jiangsu SinoUnion Healthcare Inc. can achieve the expected performance requirements through clinical verification, and its effectiveness and safety can be applied to clinical diagnosis needs.

Abstract 2

Purpose: The value of free breathing gating technology was studied by comparing PET free breathing gating method with traditional respiratory gating method.

Method: A sphere with a volume of 11.49 ml and a ¹⁸F-FDG solution with a concentration of 2.85 MBq/ml were selected. The ANZAI respiratory gating method and the free breathing gating method were used, and the single bed was collected for 3 min and the experiment was repeated 5 times. The spheres with the volume of 26.52ml, 11.49ml, 5.57ml and 1.15ml were selected and perfused with the same concentration of ¹⁸F-FDG solution. The ANZAI respiratory gating method and the free breathing gating method were used to perform single bed for 3 min at 4 different time points. collection. Twenty patients with pulmonary lesions were selected and collected by a single-door method for 3 min. The data were compared and analyzed.

Result: The volume, average concentration and maximum concentration data of ANZAI gated acquisition method and free breathing collection method were not statistically significant （t=0.66, t=-0.62, t=-0.01, P>0.05）; The signal is exactly the same. At the same concentration, the smaller the volume, the better the effect of the respiratory gating method; the smaller the volume at different concentrations, the better the effect of the respiratory gating method. For lesions larger than 2 cm3, the SUV_maxof the gating method is not the gating method SUV_max, the lesion is less than 2 cm3, and the SUV_maxof the gating method is the non-gating method SUV_max.

Conclusion: The free breathing gated acquisition method is accurate and reliable, requires no external equipment, is easy to operate, and has a stable gate signal. It is superior to the traditional respiratory gated acquisition method and is suitable for routine clinical respiratory gated acquisition methods. For smaller lesions, the greater the advantage of respiratory gating than the non-respiratory gating technique, the clinical routine examination of respiratory gating methods is conducive to the detection rate of small lesions.