Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.
Acquisition time
Digital PET
FDG
Lymphoma
Positron emission tomography
Protocol optimisation
Silicon-based photomultiplier
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Aug 2022
18 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
05
12
2021
accepted:
08
08
2022
entrez:
17
8
2022
pubmed:
18
8
2022
medline:
20
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
New-generation silicon-photomultiplier (SiPM)-based PET/CT systems exhibit an improved lesion detectability and image quality due to a higher detector sensitivity. Consequently, the acquisition time can be reduced while maintaining diagnostic quality. The aim of this study was to determine the lowest Three phantoms were used: a soft-tissue tumour phantom, a bone-lung tumour phantom, and a resolution phantom. Phantom conditions (lesion sizes from 6.5 mm to 28.8 mm in diameter, lesion activity concentration of 15 kBq/mL, and signal-to-background ratio of 5:1) were derived from patient data. PET data were acquired on an SiPM-based Biograph Vision PET/CT system for 10 min in list-mode format and resampled into time frames from 30 to 300 s in 30-s increments to simulate different acquisition times. Different image reconstructions with varying iterations, voxel sizes, and Gaussian filters were probed. Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR), maximum, and peak signal were evaluated using the 10-min acquisition time image as reference. A threshold CNR value ≥ 5 and a maximum (peak) deviation of ± 20% were considered acceptable. 20 patient data sets were evaluated regarding lesion quantification as well as agreement and correlation between reduced and full acquisition time standard uptake values (assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analyses, and Krippendorff's alpha). An acquisition time of 60 s per bed position yielded acceptable detectability and quantification results for clinically relevant phantom lesions ≥ 9.7 mm in diameter using OSEM-TOF or OSEM-TOF+PSF image reconstruction, a 4-mm Gaussian filter, and a 1.65 × 1.65 x 2.00-mm A threefold reduction in acquisition time is possible. Patients might benefit from more comfortable examinations or reduced radiation exposure, if instead of the acquisition time the applied activity is reduced.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New-generation silicon-photomultiplier (SiPM)-based PET/CT systems exhibit an improved lesion detectability and image quality due to a higher detector sensitivity. Consequently, the acquisition time can be reduced while maintaining diagnostic quality. The aim of this study was to determine the lowest
METHODS
METHODS
Three phantoms were used: a soft-tissue tumour phantom, a bone-lung tumour phantom, and a resolution phantom. Phantom conditions (lesion sizes from 6.5 mm to 28.8 mm in diameter, lesion activity concentration of 15 kBq/mL, and signal-to-background ratio of 5:1) were derived from patient data. PET data were acquired on an SiPM-based Biograph Vision PET/CT system for 10 min in list-mode format and resampled into time frames from 30 to 300 s in 30-s increments to simulate different acquisition times. Different image reconstructions with varying iterations, voxel sizes, and Gaussian filters were probed. Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR), maximum, and peak signal were evaluated using the 10-min acquisition time image as reference. A threshold CNR value ≥ 5 and a maximum (peak) deviation of ± 20% were considered acceptable. 20 patient data sets were evaluated regarding lesion quantification as well as agreement and correlation between reduced and full acquisition time standard uptake values (assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analyses, and Krippendorff's alpha).
RESULTS
RESULTS
An acquisition time of 60 s per bed position yielded acceptable detectability and quantification results for clinically relevant phantom lesions ≥ 9.7 mm in diameter using OSEM-TOF or OSEM-TOF+PSF image reconstruction, a 4-mm Gaussian filter, and a 1.65 × 1.65 x 2.00-mm
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A threefold reduction in acquisition time is possible. Patients might benefit from more comfortable examinations or reduced radiation exposure, if instead of the acquisition time the applied activity is reduced.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35978274
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09993-4
pii: 10.1186/s12885-022-09993-4
pmc: PMC9387080
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
899Subventions
Organisme : Universitätsmedizin Essen Clinician Scientist Academy (UMEA)/German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)
ID : FU356/12-1
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
EJNMMI Phys. 2021 Feb 15;8(1):14
pubmed: 33587222
Phys Med. 2017 Jul;39:95-99
pubmed: 28601381
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Oct;47(11):2507-2515
pubmed: 32424483
EJNMMI Res. 2021 Feb 28;11(1):21
pubmed: 33641046
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Jan;32(1):31-8
pubmed: 15605288
J Nucl Med. 2020 Feb;61(2):189-193
pubmed: 31324710
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jul;48(8):2395-2404
pubmed: 33797596
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014 Dec;14(6):474-9
pubmed: 25108680
J Nucl Med. 2019 Jul;60(7):1031-1036
pubmed: 30630944
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Ann Nucl Med. 2021 Apr;35(4):485-492
pubmed: 33550515
J Nucl Med. 2005 May;46(5):868-77
pubmed: 15872362
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1383-1390
pubmed: 30631910
Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Sep;38(5):979-98, x
pubmed: 11054964
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jul;48(8):2384-2394
pubmed: 33866409
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec;4(1):9
pubmed: 28144857
Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Dec 15;5(1):56-64
pubmed: 25625027
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Oct;32(5):773-778
pubmed: 30402670
Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1166-73
pubmed: 23175483
J Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;61(1):129-135
pubmed: 31253742
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Aug;129:109144
pubmed: 32593080
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Feb 21;7(1):11
pubmed: 32086646
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jul 26;:
pubmed: 34309334
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec;4(1):13
pubmed: 28260215
Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 1;11(1):17477
pubmed: 34471170
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jul;48(8):2405-2415
pubmed: 33495927
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Jun 15;7(1):40
pubmed: 32542512
J Nucl Med. 2019 May;60(5):608-614
pubmed: 30361381
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Jan;34(1):60-7
pubmed: 17021808
J Nucl Med. 2020 Nov;61(11):1684-1690
pubmed: 32198313
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Sep 3;7(1):55
pubmed: 32880792
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Jan 6;7(1):1
pubmed: 31907664
J Nucl Med. 2020 May;61(5):764-771
pubmed: 31628214
EJNMMI Res. 2013 Feb 17;3(1):11
pubmed: 23414629
Radiographics. 2010 Jan;30(1):269-91
pubmed: 20083598
J Nucl Med. 2015 Feb;56(2):274-86
pubmed: 25572088
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Nov;90(11):1574-83
pubmed: 26541251
BMC Cancer. 2021 Jan 14;21(1):62
pubmed: 33446147
J Nucl Med. 2001 May;42(5):808-17
pubmed: 11337581
Ann Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;34(10):762-771
pubmed: 32623569
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Nov 04;64(21):215017
pubmed: 31561244
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Feb;45(2):459-78
pubmed: 10701515
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Apr;28(4):523-34
pubmed: 19272998
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980 Dec;4(6):819-26
pubmed: 6971301
J Nucl Med Technol. 2015 Mar;43(1):28-35
pubmed: 25655341
Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 01;94(1126):20201350
pubmed: 34520673
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Aug 23;4(1):127
pubmed: 34426629
EJNMMI Phys. 2014 Dec;1(1):99
pubmed: 26501457
J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):701-8
pubmed: 22496583
J Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;61(10):1520-1527
pubmed: 32060218
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Nov;35(11):1961-70
pubmed: 18787822
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219