Nghi C Nguyen1, Jose L Vercher-Conejero2, Abdus Sattar3, Michael A Miller4, Piotr J Maniawski4, David W Jordan2, Raymond F Muzic2, Kuan-Hao Su2, James K O'Donnell2, Peter F Faulhaber1. 1. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio Peter.Faulhaber@UHhospitals.org nguyennc@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; and. 4. Philips Healthcare, Advanced Molecular Imaging, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We report our initial clinical experience for image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype scanner with time-of-flight (DigitalTF), compared with an analog PET scanner with time-of-flight (GeminiTF PET/CT). METHODS: Twenty-one oncologic patients, mean age 58 y, first underwent clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT on the GeminiTF. The scanner table was then withdrawn while the patient remained on the table, and the DigitalTF was inserted between the GeminiTF PET and CT scanner. The patients were scanned for a second time using the same PET field of view with CT from the GeminiTF for attenuation correction. Two interpreters reviewed the 2 sets of PET/CT images for overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and sharpness. They counted the number of suggestive (18)F-FDG-avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the 5 patients referred for initial staging. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) and SUV gradients as a measure of lesion sharpness were obtained. RESULTS: The DigitalTF showed better image quality than the GeminiTF. In a side-by-side comparison using a 5-point scale, lesion conspicuity (4.3 ± 0.6), lesion sharpness (4.3 ± 0.6), and diagnostic confidence (3.4 ± 0.7) were better with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF (P < 0.01). In 52 representative lesions, the lesion maximum SUV was 36% higher with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF, lesion-to-blood-pool SUV ratio was 59% higher, and SUV gradient was 51% higher, with good correlation between the 2 scanners. Lesions less than 1.5 cm showed a greater increase in SUV from GeminiTF to DigitalTF than those lesions 1.5 cm or greater. In 5 of 21 patients, DigitalTF showed an additional 8 suggestive lesions that were not seen using GeminiTF. In the 15 restaging patients, the true-negative rate was 100% and true-positive rate was 78% for both scanners. In the 5 patients for initial staging, DigitalTF led to upstaging in 2 patients and showed the same staging in the other 3 patients, compared with GeminiTF. CONCLUSION: DigitalTF provides better image quality, diagnostic confidence, and accuracy than GeminiTF. DigitalTF may be the most beneficial in detecting small tumor lesions and disease staging.
UNLABELLED: We report our initial clinical experience for image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype scanner with time-of-flight (DigitalTF), compared with an analog PET scanner with time-of-flight (GeminiTF PET/CT). METHODS: Twenty-one oncologic patients, mean age 58 y, first underwent clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT on the GeminiTF. The scanner table was then withdrawn while the patient remained on the table, and the DigitalTF was inserted between the GeminiTF PET and CT scanner. The patients were scanned for a second time using the same PET field of view with CT from the GeminiTF for attenuation correction. Two interpreters reviewed the 2 sets of PET/CT images for overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and sharpness. They counted the number of suggestive (18)F-FDG-avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the 5 patients referred for initial staging. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) and SUV gradients as a measure of lesion sharpness were obtained. RESULTS: The DigitalTF showed better image quality than the GeminiTF. In a side-by-side comparison using a 5-point scale, lesion conspicuity (4.3 ± 0.6), lesion sharpness (4.3 ± 0.6), and diagnostic confidence (3.4 ± 0.7) were better with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF (P < 0.01). In 52 representative lesions, the lesion maximum SUV was 36% higher with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF, lesion-to-blood-pool SUV ratio was 59% higher, and SUV gradient was 51% higher, with good correlation between the 2 scanners. Lesions less than 1.5 cm showed a greater increase in SUV from GeminiTF to DigitalTF than those lesions 1.5 cm or greater. In 5 of 21 patients, DigitalTF showed an additional 8 suggestive lesions that were not seen using GeminiTF. In the 15 restaging patients, the true-negative rate was 100% and true-positive rate was 78% for both scanners. In the 5 patients for initial staging, DigitalTF led to upstaging in 2 patients and showed the same staging in the other 3 patients, compared with GeminiTF. CONCLUSION:DigitalTF provides better image quality, diagnostic confidence, and accuracy than GeminiTF. DigitalTF may be the most beneficial in detecting small tumor lesions and disease staging.
Authors: Maria Giuseppina Bisogni; Andrea Attili; Giuseppe Battistoni; Nicola Belcari; Niccolo' Camarlinghi; Piergiorgio Cerello; Silvia Coli; Alberto Del Guerra; Alfredo Ferrari; Veronica Ferrero; Elisa Fiorina; Giuseppe Giraudo; Eleftheria Kostara; Matteo Morrocchi; Francesco Pennazio; Cristiana Peroni; Maria Antonietta Piliero; Giovanni Pirrone; Angelo Rivetti; Manuel D Rolo; Valeria Rosso; Paola Sala; Giancarlo Sportelli; Richard Wheadon Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Gaspar Delso; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Martin Huellner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Joris D van Dijk; Pieter L Jager; Jochen A C van Osch; Maryam Khodaverdi; Jorn A van Dalen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Diego Alfonso López-Mora; Albert Flotats; Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo; Valle Camacho; Alejandro Fernández; Agustí Ruiz; Joan Duch; Marina Sizova; Anna Domènech; Montserrat Estorch; Ignasi Carrió Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Yabo Fu; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jonathon A Nye; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.685