Matthew D Walker1, Marlies C Goorden2, Katherine Dinelle3, Ruud M Ramakers4, Stephan Blinder3, Maryam Shirmohammad5, Frans van der Have6, Freek J Beekman4, Vesna Sossi5. 1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada mwalker@physics.ubc.ca. 2. Section Radiation, Detection and Medical Imaging, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. 3. Pacific Parkinson's Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Section Radiation, Detection and Medical Imaging, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands MILabs, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and Department of Translational Neuroscience, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Section Radiation, Detection and Medical Imaging, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands MILabs, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: PET imaging of rodents is increasingly used in preclinical research, but its utility is limited by spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of the images. A recently developed preclinical PET system uses a clustered-pinhole collimator, enabling high-resolution, simultaneous imaging of PET and SPECT tracers. Pinhole collimation strongly departs from traditional electronic collimation achieved via coincidence detection in PET. We investigated the potential of such a design by direct comparison to a traditional PET scanner. METHODS: Two small-animal PET scanners, 1 with electronic collimation and 1 with physical collimation using clustered pinholes, were used to acquire data from Jaszczak (hot rod) and uniform phantoms. Mouse brain imaging using (18)F-FDG PET was performed on each system and compared with quantitative ex vivo autoradiography as a gold standard. Bone imaging using (18)F-NaF allowed comparison of imaging in the mouse body. Images were visually and quantitatively compared using measures of contrast and noise. RESULTS: Pinhole PET resolved the smallest rods (diameter, 0.85 mm) in the Jaszczak phantom, whereas the coincidence system resolved 1.1-mm-diameter rods. Contrast-to-noise ratios were better for pinhole PET when imaging small rods (<1.1 mm) for a wide range of activity levels, but this reversed for larger rods. Image uniformity on the coincidence system (<3%) was superior to that on the pinhole system (5%). The high (18)F-FDG uptake in the striatum of the mouse brain was fully resolved using the pinhole system, with contrast to nearby regions equaling that from autoradiography; a lower contrast was found using the coincidence PET system. For short-duration images (low-count), the coincidence system was superior. CONCLUSION: In the cases for which small regions need to be resolved in scans with reasonably high activity or reasonably long scan times, a first-generation clustered-pinhole system can provide image quality in terms of resolution, contrast, and the contrast-to-noise ratio superior to a traditional PET system.
UNLABELLED: PET imaging of rodents is increasingly used in preclinical research, but its utility is limited by spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of the images. A recently developed preclinical PET system uses a clustered-pinhole collimator, enabling high-resolution, simultaneous imaging of PET and SPECT tracers. Pinhole collimation strongly departs from traditional electronic collimation achieved via coincidence detection in PET. We investigated the potential of such a design by direct comparison to a traditional PET scanner. METHODS: Two small-animal PET scanners, 1 with electronic collimation and 1 with physical collimation using clustered pinholes, were used to acquire data from Jaszczak (hot rod) and uniform phantoms. Mouse brain imaging using (18)F-FDG PET was performed on each system and compared with quantitative ex vivo autoradiography as a gold standard. Bone imaging using (18)F-NaF allowed comparison of imaging in the mouse body. Images were visually and quantitatively compared using measures of contrast and noise. RESULTS: Pinhole PET resolved the smallest rods (diameter, 0.85 mm) in the Jaszczak phantom, whereas the coincidence system resolved 1.1-mm-diameter rods. Contrast-to-noise ratios were better for pinhole PET when imaging small rods (<1.1 mm) for a wide range of activity levels, but this reversed for larger rods. Image uniformity on the coincidence system (<3%) was superior to that on the pinhole system (5%). The high (18)F-FDG uptake in the striatum of the mouse brain was fully resolved using the pinhole system, with contrast to nearby regions equaling that from autoradiography; a lower contrast was found using the coincidence PET system. For short-duration images (low-count), the coincidence system was superior. CONCLUSION: In the cases for which small regions need to be resolved in scans with reasonably high activity or reasonably long scan times, a first-generation clustered-pinhole system can provide image quality in terms of resolution, contrast, and the contrast-to-noise ratio superior to a traditional PET system.
Authors: Srilalan Krishnamoorthy; Eric Blankemeyer; Pieter Mollet; Suleman Surti; Roel Van Holen; Joel S Karp Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Matthias N van Oosterom; Rob Kreuger; Tessa Buckle; Wendy A Mahn; Anton Bunschoten; Lee Josephson; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen; Freek J Beekman Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Hilary E Barrett; Eric J Meester; Kim van Gaalen; Kim van der Heiden; Boudewijn J Krenning; Freek J Beekman; Erik de Blois; Jan de Swart; H J Verhagen; Theodosia Maina; Berthold A Nock; Jeffrey P Norenberg; Marion de Jong; Frank J H Gijsen; Monique R Bernsen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jan P Janssen; Jan V Hoffmann; Takayuki Kanno; Naoko Nose; Jan-Peter Grunz; Masahisa Onoguchi; Xinyu Chen; Constantin Lapa; Andreas K Buck; Takahiro Higuchi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: K Van der Heiden; H E Barrett; E J Meester; K van Gaalen; B J Krenning; F J Beekman; E de Blois; J de Swart; H J M Verhagen; A van der Lugt; J P Norenberg; M de Jong; M R Bernsen; F J H Gijsen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 3.872