Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical
Digital PET/CT
Dose reduction
Image quality
Protocol optimization
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2020
06 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
08
09
2019
accepted:
16
12
2019
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
8
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We assessed and compared image quality obtained with clinical We performed list-mode (LM) PET acquisitions using a NEMA/IEC NU2 phantom, with activity concentrations of 5 kBq/mL and 25 kBq/mL for the background (9.5 L) and sphere inserts, respectively. For each device, reconstructions were obtained varying the image statistics (10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 300 s from LM data) and the number of iterations (range 1 to 10) in addition to the employed local clinical protocol setup. We measured for each reconstructed dataset: the quantitative cross-calibration, the image noise on the uniform background assessed by the coefficient of variation (COV), and the recovery coefficients (RCs) evaluated in the hot spheres. Additionally, we compared the characteristic time-activity-product (TAP) that is the product of scan time per bed position × mass-activity administered (in min·MBq/kg) across datasets. Good system cross-calibration was obtained for all tested datasets with < 6% deviation from the expected value was observed. For all clinical protocol settings, image noise was compatible with clinical interpretation (COV < 15%). Digital PET showed an improved background signal-to-noise ratio as compared to conventional PMT-based PET. RCs were comparable between digital and PMT-based PET datasets. Compared to PMT-based PET, digital systems provided comparable image quality with lower TAP (from ~ 40% less and up to 70% less). This study compared the achievable clinical image quality in three state-of-the-art digital PET/CT devices (from different vendors) as well as in two conventional PMT-based PET. Reported results show that a comparable image quality is achievable with a TAP reduction of ~ 40% in digital PET. This could lead to a significant reduction of the administered mass-activity and/or scan time with direct benefits in terms of dose exposure and patient comfort.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We assessed and compared image quality obtained with clinical
METHODS
METHODS
We performed list-mode (LM) PET acquisitions using a NEMA/IEC NU2 phantom, with activity concentrations of 5 kBq/mL and 25 kBq/mL for the background (9.5 L) and sphere inserts, respectively. For each device, reconstructions were obtained varying the image statistics (10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 300 s from LM data) and the number of iterations (range 1 to 10) in addition to the employed local clinical protocol setup. We measured for each reconstructed dataset: the quantitative cross-calibration, the image noise on the uniform background assessed by the coefficient of variation (COV), and the recovery coefficients (RCs) evaluated in the hot spheres. Additionally, we compared the characteristic time-activity-product (TAP) that is the product of scan time per bed position × mass-activity administered (in min·MBq/kg) across datasets.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Good system cross-calibration was obtained for all tested datasets with < 6% deviation from the expected value was observed. For all clinical protocol settings, image noise was compatible with clinical interpretation (COV < 15%). Digital PET showed an improved background signal-to-noise ratio as compared to conventional PMT-based PET. RCs were comparable between digital and PMT-based PET datasets. Compared to PMT-based PET, digital systems provided comparable image quality with lower TAP (from ~ 40% less and up to 70% less).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study compared the achievable clinical image quality in three state-of-the-art digital PET/CT devices (from different vendors) as well as in two conventional PMT-based PET. Reported results show that a comparable image quality is achievable with a TAP reduction of ~ 40% in digital PET. This could lead to a significant reduction of the administered mass-activity and/or scan time with direct benefits in terms of dose exposure and patient comfort.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31907664
doi: 10.1186/s40658-019-0269-4
pii: 10.1186/s40658-019-0269-4
pmc: PMC6944719
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1Références
EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):22
pubmed: 27682837
J Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;60(4):561-567
pubmed: 30361382
Mol Imaging Biol. 2018 Jun;20(3):492-500
pubmed: 29192363
J Nucl Med. 2012 Nov;53(11):1716-22
pubmed: 22952340
Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5394-411
pubmed: 21992359
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(8):1344-1361
pubmed: 29500480
Curr Radiol Rep. 2013 May 3;1:177-190
pubmed: 24883234
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jan 7;60(1):15-29
pubmed: 25479254
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013 Apr;15(4):352
pubmed: 23544184
J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):462-70
pubmed: 18287269
J Nucl Med. 2015 Jun;56(6):955-61
pubmed: 25883122
Ann Nucl Med. 2015 Jan;29(1):71-7
pubmed: 25258046
Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Jan;38(1):57-66
pubmed: 27755394
Med Phys. 2015 Jul;42(7):4295-309
pubmed: 26133627
J Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;58(3):399-405
pubmed: 27688481
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1511-1518
pubmed: 28450566
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Apr 21;56(8):2375-89
pubmed: 21427485
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Oct 21;49(20):4731-44
pubmed: 15566171
J Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;56(9):1447-52
pubmed: 26159585
Cancer. 2014 Nov 15;120(22):3433-45
pubmed: 24947987
J Nucl Med. 2009 Jan;50(1):72-80
pubmed: 19091902
J Biomed Res. 2015 May;29(3):189-202
pubmed: 26060443
J Nucl Med. 2004 Sep;45(9):1519-27
pubmed: 15347719
EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):17
pubmed: 27495914
EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):3
pubmed: 26879863
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Jan;37(1):181-200
pubmed: 19915839
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Feb 21;56(4):931-49
pubmed: 21248391
EJNMMI Res. 2018 Nov 6;8(1):97
pubmed: 30402779
Med Phys. 2015 Jul;42(7):3979-91
pubmed: 26133598
J Nucl Med. 2019 Oct 18;:null
pubmed: 31628214
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):4-16
pubmed: 28687866