A Therese Soderlund1, Jasper Chaal2, Gabriel Tjio2, John J Totman2, Maurizio Conti3, David W Townsend4. 1. A*STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Research Center, Singapore anna_therese@circ.a-star.edu.sg. 2. A*STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Research Center, Singapore. 3. Siemens Healthcare Molecular Imaging, Knoxville, Tennessee; and. 4. A*STAR-NUS Clinical Imaging Research Center, Singapore Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study aimed to investigate image quality for a comprehensive set of isotopes ((18)F, (11)C, (89)Zr, (124)I, (68)Ga, and (90)Y) on 2 clinical scanners: a PET/CT scanner and a PET/MR scanner. METHODS: Image quality and spatial resolution were tested according to NU 2-2007 of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. An image-quality phantom was used to measure contrast recovery, residual bias in a cold area, and background variability. Reconstruction methods available on the 2 scanners were compared, including point-spread-function correction for both scanners and time of flight for the PET/CT scanner. Spatial resolution was measured using point sources and filtered backprojection reconstruction. RESULTS: With the exception of (90)Y, small differences were seen in the hot-sphere contrast recovery of the different isotopes. Cold-sphere contrast recovery was similar across isotopes for all reconstructions, with an improvement seen with time of flight on the PET/CT scanner. The lower-statistic (90)Y scans yielded substantially lower contrast recovery than the other isotopes. When isotopes were compared, there was no difference in measured spatial resolution except for PET/MR axial spatial resolution, which was significantly higher for (124)I and (68)Ga. CONCLUSION: Overall, both scanners produced good images with (18)F, (11)C, (89)Zr, (124)I, (68)Ga, and (90)Y.
UNLABELLED: This study aimed to investigate image quality for a comprehensive set of isotopes ((18)F, (11)C, (89)Zr, (124)I, (68)Ga, and (90)Y) on 2 clinical scanners: a PET/CT scanner and a PET/MR scanner. METHODS: Image quality and spatial resolution were tested according to NU 2-2007 of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. An image-quality phantom was used to measure contrast recovery, residual bias in a cold area, and background variability. Reconstruction methods available on the 2 scanners were compared, including point-spread-function correction for both scanners and time of flight for the PET/CT scanner. Spatial resolution was measured using point sources and filtered backprojection reconstruction. RESULTS: With the exception of (90)Y, small differences were seen in the hot-sphere contrast recovery of the different isotopes. Cold-sphere contrast recovery was similar across isotopes for all reconstructions, with an improvement seen with time of flight on the PET/CT scanner. The lower-statistic (90)Y scans yielded substantially lower contrast recovery than the other isotopes. When isotopes were compared, there was no difference in measured spatial resolution except for PET/MR axial spatial resolution, which was significantly higher for (124)I and (68)Ga. CONCLUSION: Overall, both scanners produced good images with (18)F, (11)C, (89)Zr, (124)I, (68)Ga, and (90)Y.
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Stephanie Bela Andela; Holger Amthauer; Christian Furth; Julian M Rogasch; Marcus Beck; Frank Hofheinz; Kai Huang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Marion Chomet; Maxime Schreurs; Ricardo Vos; Mariska Verlaan; Esther J Kooijman; Alex J Poot; Ronald Boellaard; Albert D Windhorst; Guus Ams van Dongen; Danielle J Vugts; Marc C Huisman; Wissam Beaino Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Nichole M Maughan; Mootaz Eldib; David Faul; Maurizio Conti; Mattijs Elschot; Karin Knešaurek; Francesca Leek; David Townsend; Frank P DiFilippo; Kimberly Jackson; Stephan G Nekolla; Mathias Lukas; Michael Tapner; Parag J Parikh; Richard Laforest Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2018-04-04