Truncated LM files, CT failed acquisitions, Gating issues
From: Gimenez, Emilio
[mailto:Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:42 AM
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Cc: Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Farber, Brian <brian.farber@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: summary of call
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Cc: Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Farber, Brian <brian.farber@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: summary of call
Dear all,
Yesterday and today we did the first revision of the data
after our meeting of las Tuesday 4th of June.
I would like to update the priority points that we
commented in the Cesar´s report.
- Top priority Truncated LM and Images discrepancies:
- Checks Soumen 3 studies reconstructions.
- The reconstruction with automatic mode get the header
information correctly.
- We found a way to include the information of the
header in advance reconstruction, to do an optimal process, we need to
update the software.
- Show
Soumen how to check the duration of an LM file
- I have copied in the desktop 2 software to check the
LM file header, this is the route: C:\Users\Albira\Desktop\Open LM files
- I left in the folder the instructions for each tool
and I attached in this email.
- Show
Soumen how the Supervisor gives the right result on the Q factor
- I processed again the study from 3rd of
June and I passed correctly the supervisor.
- I did with the 2 Workstations, and the result was the
same. And the image is the same(We got a small differences in the 4
decimal 111.111X)
- Soumen
to tell us what the remaining files are to give top priority in
processing.
- Yesterday
and today, I open all the studies from 8th to 16th
of May with name “Jiange He” studies and I check the LM header. Now, all
of these studies the LM is correct and the times, isotopes and decays
are correct.
- I
attached a spread sheet(Studies 8th to 14th of May) with all the information,
in the folder “Jiange He Studies” you have the list of the studies
checked.
- Check
configuration of the software and version on both Workstations to see if
that could explain differences
- During
these yesterday, we did several reconstructions where we can see that
the result with the 2 WS are the same:
- in the spread sheet(Studies 8th to 14th of May) the folder “QC
Studies” you can see the image of the phantom QC reconstructed with 2
computers and the Quantification result, it is the same.
- in the spread sheet(Studies 8th to 14th of May) the folder
“Jiange He Studies”, you can see the image with an animal´s
reconstruction, where the results with 2 computers image´s and
the Quantification result is the same.
- My conclusion is that both workstations are working correctly.
Yesterday,
we had a call where I presented all these images, data and software’s
tools to Soumen. From now my nexts steps are two:
- Check
the rest of the studies for weibin shi animals
, I will try to checked tomorrow.
- And
prepare a software update that help us to fix the following issues:
- Do
the automatic fusion without any inconvenience.
- Carry
on multiple reconstructions of advance mode with the Zr89 algorithm in
one process.
I need to
coordinate the second point with Soumen and Gus-Carlos to do not have any
interference.
I will keep
you reported.
Regards,
Emilio Gimenez
| Day | Study name | Isot Selected | Algorit Selected | Recon Aut | Header Aut | Recon Q ZR89 | Header ZR89 | Time Acq(Sec) | LM Correct |
| 9-May | M:\05-09-2019\cage1-mouse1-NO1-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F18 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 9-May | M:\05-09-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F18 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 9-May | M:\05-09-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F18 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 9-May | M:\05-09-2019\cage1-mouse4-LRC5-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F18 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 9-May | M:\05-09-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F18 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse1-LNO1-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F19 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jianghe-junli-24h(2) | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F20 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jianghe-junli-24hrs | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F21 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F22 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jianghe-junli-24h(2) | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F23 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage1-mouse4-LRC5-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F24 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage2-mouse1-RC7-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F25 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage2-mouse1-RC7-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F26 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage2-mouse2-NO8-Jianghe-junli- | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F27 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage2-mouse2-NO8-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F28 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 10-May | M:\05-10-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jianghe-junli-24h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F29 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 11-May | M:\05-11-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jianghe-junli-48h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F30 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 11-May | M:\05-11-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jianghe-junli-48h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F31 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 11-May | M:\05-11-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jianghe-junli-48h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F32 | Yes | Correct | No | 900 | YES | |
| 12-May | M:\05-12-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jiang He-72h(2) | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F33 | Yes | Correct | No | 1200 | YES | |
| 12-May | M:\05-12-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL8-Jiang He-72h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F34 | Yes | Correct | No | 1200 | YES | |
| 12-May | M:\05-12-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jiang He-72h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F35 | Yes | Correct | No | 1200 | YES | |
| 12-May | M:\05-12-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jiang He-72h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F36 | Yes | Correct | No | 1200 | YES | |
| 13-May | M:\05-13-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jiang He-96h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F37 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 13-May | M:\05-13-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jiang He-96h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F38 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 13-May | M:\05-13-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jiang He-96h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F39 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 14-May | M:\05-14-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jiang He-120h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F40 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 14-May | M:\05-14-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jiang He-120h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F41 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 14-May | M:\05-14-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jiang He-120h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F42 | Yes | Correct | No | 1800 | YES | |
| 15-May | M:\05-15-2019\cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jiang He-144h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F43 | Yes | Correct | No | 2700 | YES | |
| 15-May | M:\05-15-2019\cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jiang He-144h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F44 | Yes | Correct | No | 2700 | YES | |
| 15-May | M:\05-15-2019\cage2-mouse3-RL8-Jiang He-144h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F45 | Yes | Correct | No | 2700 | YES | |
| 16-May | M:\05-16-2019\Cage1-mouse2-RL2-Jiang He-168h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F46 | Yes | Correct | No | 3600 | YES | |
| 16-May | M:\05-16-2019\Cage1-mouse3-RC4-Jiang He-168h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F47 | Yes | Correct | No | 3600 | YES | |
| 16-May | M:\05-16-2019\Cage2-mouse2-RC8-Jiang He-168h | Zr89-Y5SFL | Cal 48 32x32 05 F48 | Yes | Correct | No | 3600 | YES |
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc)
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 1:43 PM
To: He, Jiang (jh6qv) <jh6qv@virginia.edu>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>
Cc: Li, Jun (jl3my) <jl3my@virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: service on PET/SPECT/CT scanner
From: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc)
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 1:43 PM
To: He, Jiang (jh6qv) <jh6qv@virginia.edu>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>
Cc: Li, Jun (jl3my) <jl3my@virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: service on PET/SPECT/CT scanner
Dr.He,
There was software
issue with the Reconstructor (Image reconstruction). We have corrected the
issue last week and I mentioned to Jun Li.
In this week the we are revising all the dataset before I
hand over to Jun. The Scanner is working well , no hardware issue. Next week we
will have all the dataset including Dr.Weibin Shi's FDG study. I apologize for
the delay and the inconvenience ! Finally we want to make sure that we all
obtain meaningful data.
Thanks for your time and patience!
Soumen
-----Original Message-----
From: He, Jiang *HS [mailto:JH6QV@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: service on PET/SPECT/CT scanner
Hi, Stuart and Soumen:
How is the scanner now? We are planning imaging studies
soon. The longitudinal imaging study on diabetes mice are due 1-2 weeks. we
also plan for tumor imaging too.
Thanks!
Jiang He, PhD
From: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) [mailto:sp8pc@virginia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:59 PM
To: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: Re: summary of call
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:59 PM
To: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: Re: summary of call
Soumen
From: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc)
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:55:07 PM
To: Gimenez, Emilio; Molinos, Cesar; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU'; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a); Correcher, Carlos; Pastor, Gustavo; Sasser, Todd
Subject: Re: summary of call
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:55:07 PM
To: Gimenez, Emilio; Molinos, Cesar; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU'; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a); Correcher, Carlos; Pastor, Gustavo; Sasser, Todd
Subject: Re: summary of call
I reconstructed few animals using Automatic reconstuction and the image.hdr file has all the information, but the algorithm is not right. I just tried to check the difference bewteen Automatic vs Advanced. Initially I used advanced reconstructor as I need to select the 89Zr profile, which is not possible in Automatic .
The options: To fix the img.hdr problem in Advanced reconstructor OR to change the algorithm for different istope in Automatic
Thanks,
Soumen
From: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1:05:18 PM
To: Molinos, Cesar; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU'; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a); Paul, Soumen (sp8pc); Correcher, Carlos; Pastor, Gustavo; Sasser, Todd
Subject: RE: summary of call
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1:05:18 PM
To: Molinos, Cesar; 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU'; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a); Paul, Soumen (sp8pc); Correcher, Carlos; Pastor, Gustavo; Sasser, Todd
Subject: RE: summary of call
Thanks for
report Cesar,
Please leave the Team viewer on in the Workstation 2 for
tomorrow.
Thanks,
Emilio Gimenez
From: Gimenez, Emilio
[mailto:Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com] On Behalf Of NMI, Support
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1:03 PM
To: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1:03 PM
To: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Hello Soumen,
Please, could be possible a bit earlier for example 9:30H
EST time?
Thanks,
Emilio
Gimenez
Service
Engineer NMI
Nuclear Molecular Imaging
Nuclear Molecular Imaging
Bruker
BioSpin Preclinical Imaging División
46013 Valencia, Spain
Registered
Office: Madrid bearer of NIF A-28315539
Managing Directors: Víctor Pidal
Managing Directors: Víctor Pidal
Este mail, incluido los adjuntos, puede contener
información confidencial. Por lo tanto debe ser tratado como confidencial por
los destinatarios y no ser publicado.
This email, including possible attachments, may contain
confidential information. It should therefore be treated as confidential by the
addressee and may not be published
De: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc)
<sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Enviado el: martes, 4 de junio de 2019 18:38
Para: NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Asunto: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Enviado el: martes, 4 de junio de 2019 18:38
Para: NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Asunto: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Hi Emilio ,
Thanks much for reprocessed the
LM file.
Tomorrow at 10: 30 (EST) am is
okay for you to have discussion regarding the LM file and the albira supervisor
?
Thanks,
Soumen
From: Gimenez, Emilio [mailto:Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com]
On Behalf Of NMI, Support
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:23 PM
To: NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:23 PM
To: NMI, Support <Support.NMI@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: SPECT QC passed but PET quantification failed
Hello Soumen,
This is the result with the study that you did yesterday. I
re-processed the LM, reconstructed the data , and the supervisor passed the
test.
Tomorrow I will try with the study that you did 22nd
of May..
Regards,
Emilio
Gimenez
From: Molinos, Cesar
[mailto:Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:54 PM
To: 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: summary of call
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:54 PM
To: 'BERR@VIRGINIA. EDU' <berr@virginia.edu>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: summary of call
Dear All,
Thanks for
taking part in the call today. We think it was very useful. Stuart, Bijoy and
Soumen: we apologize for the inconveniences you have had and we are confident
we will overcome all the issues.
This is
just a quick summary of the action points:
Top
priority: Truncated LM files and image discrepancies
-
Check Soumen’s reconstructions
against ours to find out why they differ in the cases where the LM files had
already been completed successfully. See Soumen’s email attached capturing 3
cases where this effect happens. Emilio to check tomorrow.
-
Show Soumen how to check the
duration of an LM file to make sure it has all the calibrated data from a .dat
file. Emilio to show Soumen tomorrow. We will produce a short guide, see below.
-
Show Soumen how the Supervisor gives
the right result on the Q factor after having reprocessed the file. Emilio to
show Soumen tomorrow.
-
Soumen to tell us what the remaining
files are to give top priority in processing.
-
Check configuration of the software
and version on both Workstations to see if that could explain differences.
Emilio run the reconstructions systematically on Worksation 1 without problems.
Emilio or Gustavo to check ASAP.
Less
urgent:
-
Capture in short report issues,
solutions and state of the system. Cesar by Friday 21st June
(include short guide on LM file duration check).
-
Error saving image in user chosen
folder. Soumen described. We need to reproduce to know what is going on. Emilio
to try to reproduce when possible.
-
Fusion issue. This should be solved
by a new Software version. Gustavo to say when this will be available and then
UVa to give us availability to carry out. Gustavo recommends to be able to use
point source to be absolute sure the software update was successful.
-
CT failed acquisitions. Test points
(not sure that is the right word) were introduced in the software to
characterize the problem and therefore be able to tackle it. We will continue
to monitor as we need to know what exactly causes the problem.
-
Dynamic + Gating. Possible cause
suggested. We need to verify if correct. Cesar checking, give feedback by end
of June.
Kind
regards,
Cesar.
|
Cesar
Molinos Solsona
Product Specialist NMI
Nuclear
Molecular Imaging
Bruker
BioSpin Preclinical Imaging Division
|
From: Paul, Soumen (sp8pc)
[mailto:sp8pc@virginia.edu]
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:23 PM
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:23 PM
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Berr, Stuart S (sb4b) <sb4b@virginia.edu>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hi Cesar and Emilio ,
I tried to do the
reconstruction with the corrected LM files in order to check if I can see the
information (dose, animal wt, date and time of scan) which was missing before,
but after the advanced reconstruction the information are still missing, also
it generates the WRONG image file.
I checked in three animals, two
is 89zr study and the other is 18FDG
Cage1 mouse3-RC4 (05-09-2019):
Advnaced recon, 89ZR 0.5, 24 iterations
Cage2-mouse3-RL8-72hrs
(05-12-2019): Advnaced recon, 89ZR 0.5, 24 iterations
Weibinshi FDG study
(05-16-2019)- I used Advanced reconst, Algorithm: Cal48 3R32X32 0.5, 24
iterations
Emilio: Could you please let me
know how you have performed the Reconstructions ?As I can see all the
information in the hdr file which YOU have reconstructed.
Thanks much,
Soumen
From: Molinos, Cesar [mailto:Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hello
Bijoy,
After
speaking with Todd and the team here, I think the best thing would be to
organize a call so we answer your queries quickly, align on what the issues
are, the priorities and fixes.
Shall we
have the call Monday o Tuesday during your morning? Please suggest.
Kind
regards,
Cesar.
From: Bijoy Kundu <bkk5a@virginia.edu>
Sent: 31 May 2019 14:40
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: 31 May 2019 14:40
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>
Cc: Gimenez, Emilio <Emilio.Gimenez@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Paul, Soumen (sp8pc) <sp8pc@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hi Cesar et
al. I have been working with Soumen regarding the issues he has been having. It
is indeed confusing with the lm files especially with the Zr data sets.. One
question is that how do you know if a lm file is correct or incorrect? How do
you correct that as that is determined by your acquisition parameters, isotope
used, injected dose, fov selected etc and it seems for all the mentioned
parameters for the same acquisition time, injected dose and animal weight,
there is a big difference in lm file sizes, not all though. This problem seems
only for Zr89 and not for FDG.
We made
sure to include the correct branching fraction (~23%). The energy window should
not be different compared to FDG. Is a new energy calibration needed for every
isotope used? I thought it was not needed as all are 511 kev gammas as opposed
to spect. Of course the recon and quantification depends upon the q curve which
soumen established and using for his recons.
The key
question is that how do you know that a lm file is incorrect and how
can you correct that?
1) The lm
file problem exists only for Zr89 and
2) the
header files go missing in some recon files and that is happening with FDG as
well.
Please
suggest. Thanks.
Bijoy
On Fri, May
31, 2019 at 6:55 AM Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>
wrote:
Dear Bijoy,
We have been discussing what the
issue on the gating+dynamic topic could be. After this, we have come up with
some checks we need to do remotely taking one the already acquired studies.
As a separate topic, Emilio is now
supporting Soumen on the reconstruction issues by a remote connection. We think
that by Monday this task will be completed and then we will proceed to check
the gating+dynamic study. We hope that then we can reach a conclusion and start
putting a solution in place.
Kind regards,
Cesar.
From: Sasser, Todd
Sent: 24 May 2019 13:23
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: 24 May 2019 13:23
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hi
Cesar,
Please
just be aware that there is a separate underlying recon issue we uncovered the
day after we evaluated this. You know better than me, but I think that might
need to be cleared up before more test scans for the issue below can be
trusted.
Thanks,
Bruker Preclinical Imaging
Todd Sasser, PhD
From: Molinos, Cesar
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 7:19 AM
To: Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 7:19 AM
To: Sasser, Todd <todd.sasser@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: RE: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hi Todd,
This needs to be investigated
further. I did look into it, saw what Bijoy reported but could not find out the
reason for the problem in the dataset Bijoy pointed to. I thought Bijoy could
still use the dataset with the ROIs defined on the longer subsequent frames of
the dynamic. In any case, it is clear this issue needs to be explained.
This coming week I will have time to
look again into the issue and I will get Carlos and Gustavo involved. I would
like to start by progressively increase the frame duration to see if at some
point the gated frames start capturing the activity peak.
It would be good if the discrepancy
is systematic or occasional. Also, please let us know the most recent dataset
where we can check.
Kind regards,
Cesar.
From: Sasser, Todd
Sent: 22 May 2019 15:15
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Sent: 22 May 2019 15:15
To: Molinos, Cesar <Cesar.Molinos@bruker.com>; Kundu, Bijoy (bkk5a) <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; Pastor, Gustavo <Gustavo.Pastor@bruker.com>; Correcher, Carlos <Carlos.Correcher@bruker.com>
Subject: UVA Dual Dynamic Gated
Hi
All,
Bijoy
and I were looking at their Dynamic Gated data. I think that others have looked
at the data, but it’s clear in the TAC profile that profile for the non-gated
dynamic data (top) and gated dynamic data (bottom) do not agree. (Ignore the
per frame gate peaks in the gated dynamic data – the overall profile looks the
same when individual gates are profiled). Note that the gated dynamic data does
not include the clear initial peak, or at least is relatively far less when
compared/scaled to the TAC at later times. Also, it’s not shown here, but the
TAC activity range for the non-gated dynamic profile is about 10X that of the
gated dynamic data. Bijoy was speculating that the cause might be an error in
the decay correction scheme that might be applied and looking at the file
details, PMOD is indicating that the gated dynamic data is not decay corrected.
I assume that we don’t decay corrected gated only data in the same way that we
would standard static or dynamic scans because the data is a composite average
for each frame over a period correct? Therefore I am also wondering if the
individual gates for each frame do not have decay corrections that represent the
frame they are at?
Comments
Post a Comment