D Visvikis1, D Griffiths, D C Costa, J Bomanji, P J Ell. 1. U650 INSERM, Laboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Medicale (LaTIM), CHU Morvan, Brest, 29609, France. dimitris@univ-brest.fr
Abstract
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional positron emission tomography (3D PET) results in higher system sensitivity, with an associated increase in the detection of scatter and random coincidences. The objective of this work was to compare, from a clinical perspective, 3D and two-dimensional (2D) acquisitions in terms of whole-body (WB) PET image quality with a dedicated BGO PET system. METHODS: 2D and 3D WB emission acquisitions were carried out in 70 patients. Variable acquisition parameters in terms of time of emission acquisition per axial field of view (aFOV) and slice overlap between sequential aFOVs were used during the 3D acquisitions. 3D and 2D images were reconstructed using FORE+WLS and OSEM respectively. Scatter correction was performed by convolution subtraction and a model-based scatter correction in 2D and 3D respectively. All WB images were attenuation corrected using segmented transmission scans. Images were blindly assessed by three observers for the presence of artefacts, confidence in lesion detection and overall image quality using a scoring system. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D image quality were only obtained for 3D emission acquisitions of 3 min. No statistically significant differences were observed for image artefacts or lesion detectability scores. Image quality correlated significantly with patient weight for both modes of operation. Finally, no differences were seen in image artefact scores for the different axial slice overlaps considered, suggesting the use of five slice overlaps in 3D WB acquisitions. CONCLUSION:3D WB imaging using a dedicated BGO-based PET scanner offers similar image quality to that obtained in 2D considering similar overall times of acquisitions.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional positron emission tomography (3D PET) results in higher system sensitivity, with an associated increase in the detection of scatter and random coincidences. The objective of this work was to compare, from a clinical perspective, 3D and two-dimensional (2D) acquisitions in terms of whole-body (WB) PET image quality with a dedicated BGO PET system. METHODS: 2D and 3D WB emission acquisitions were carried out in 70 patients. Variable acquisition parameters in terms of time of emission acquisition per axial field of view (aFOV) and slice overlap between sequential aFOVs were used during the 3D acquisitions. 3D and 2D images were reconstructed using FORE+WLS and OSEM respectively. Scatter correction was performed by convolution subtraction and a model-based scatter correction in 2D and 3D respectively. All WB images were attenuation corrected using segmented transmission scans. Images were blindly assessed by three observers for the presence of artefacts, confidence in lesion detection and overall image quality using a scoring system. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D image quality were only obtained for 3D emission acquisitions of 3 min. No statistically significant differences were observed for image artefacts or lesion detectability scores. Image quality correlated significantly with patient weight for both modes of operation. Finally, no differences were seen in image artefact scores for the different axial slice overlaps considered, suggesting the use of five slice overlaps in 3D WB acquisitions. CONCLUSION: 3D WB imaging using a dedicated BGO-based PET scanner offers similar image quality to that obtained in 2D considering similar overall times of acquisitions.
Authors: Stephen Chiang; Chris Cardi; Samuel Matej; Hongming Zhuang; Andrew Newberg; Abass Alavi; Joel S Karp Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Hendrik Everaert; Christian Vanhove; Tony Lahoutte; Kristoff Muylle; Vicky Caveliers; Axel Bossuyt; Philippe R Franken Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-09-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Magnus Dahlbom; Andrew Quon; Christian Schiepers; Christian Waldherr; Daniel H Silverman; Osman Ratib; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Solange A Nogueira; Renato Dimenstein; Marcelo L Cunha; Jairo Wagner; Marcelo B G Funari; Henrique M Lederman Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Arno P van der Weerdt; Ronald Boellaard; Frans C Visser; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sasan Partovi; Andres Kohan; Chiara Gaeta; Christian Rubbert; Jose L Vercher-Conejero; Robert S Jones; James K O'Donnell; Patrick Wojtylak; Peter Faulhaber Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-09