PURPOSE: Early stage breast cancers may not be visible on a whole-body PET scan. To overcome whole-body PET limitations, several dedicated breast positron emission tomography (DbPET) systems have emerged nowadays aiming to improve spatial resolution. In this work the authors evaluate the performance of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner (Mammi-PET, Oncovision). METHODS: Global status, uniformity, sensitivity, energy, and spatial resolution were measured. Spheres of different sizes (2.5, 4, 5, and 6 mm diameter) and various 18 fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) activity concentrations were randomly inserted in a gelatine breast phantom developed at our institution. Several lesion-to-background ratios (LBR) were simulated, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, 30:1, and 50:1. Images were reconstructed using different voxel sizes. The ability of experienced reporters to detect spheres was tested as a function of acquisition time, LBR, sphere size, and matrix reconstruction voxel size. For comparison, phantoms were scanned in the DbPET camera and in a whole body PET (WB-PET). Two patients who just underwent WB-PET/CT exams were imaged with the DbPET system and the images were compared. RESULTS: The measured absolute peak sensitivity was 2.0%. The energy resolution was 24.0% ± 1%. The integral and differential uniformity were 10% and 6% in the total field of view (FOV) and 9% and 5% in the central FOV, respectively. The measured spatial resolution was 2.0, 1.9, and 1.7 mm in the radial, tangential, and axial directions. The system exhibited very good detectability for spheres ≥4 mm and LBR ≥10 with a sphere detection of 100% when acquisition time was set >3 min/bed. For LBR = 5 and acquisition time of 7 min the detectability was 100% for spheres of 6 mm and 75% for spheres of 5, 4, and 2.5 mm. Lesion WB-PET detectability was only comparable to the DbPET camera for lesion sizes ≥5 mm when acquisition time was >3 min and LBR > 10. CONCLUSIONS: The DbPET has a good performance for its clinical use and shows an improved resolution and lesion detectability of small lesions compared to WB-PET.
PURPOSE: Early stage breast cancers may not be visible on a whole-body PET scan. To overcome whole-body PET limitations, several dedicated breast positron emission tomography (DbPET) systems have emerged nowadays aiming to improve spatial resolution. In this work the authors evaluate the performance of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner (Mammi-PET, Oncovision). METHODS: Global status, uniformity, sensitivity, energy, and spatial resolution were measured. Spheres of different sizes (2.5, 4, 5, and 6 mm diameter) and various 18 fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) activity concentrations were randomly inserted in a gelatine breast phantom developed at our institution. Several lesion-to-background ratios (LBR) were simulated, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, 30:1, and 50:1. Images were reconstructed using different voxel sizes. The ability of experienced reporters to detect spheres was tested as a function of acquisition time, LBR, sphere size, and matrix reconstruction voxel size. For comparison, phantoms were scanned in the DbPET camera and in a whole body PET (WB-PET). Two patients who just underwent WB-PET/CT exams were imaged with the DbPET system and the images were compared. RESULTS: The measured absolute peak sensitivity was 2.0%. The energy resolution was 24.0% ± 1%. The integral and differential uniformity were 10% and 6% in the total field of view (FOV) and 9% and 5% in the central FOV, respectively. The measured spatial resolution was 2.0, 1.9, and 1.7 mm in the radial, tangential, and axial directions. The system exhibited very good detectability for spheres ≥4 mm and LBR ≥10 with a sphere detection of 100% when acquisition time was set >3 min/bed. For LBR = 5 and acquisition time of 7 min the detectability was 100% for spheres of 6 mm and 75% for spheres of 5, 4, and 2.5 mm. Lesion WB-PET detectability was only comparable to the DbPET camera for lesion sizes ≥5 mm when acquisition time was >3 min and LBR > 10. CONCLUSIONS: The DbPET has a good performance for its clinical use and shows an improved resolution and lesion detectability of small lesions compared to WB-PET.
Authors: Raymond R Raylman; Will Van Kampen; Alexander V Stolin; Wenbo Gong; Gangadhar Jaliparthi; Peter F Martone; Mark F Smith; David Sarment; Neal H Clinthorne; Mark Perna Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael K O'Connor; Thuy D Tran; Tiffinee N Swanson; Lacey R Ellingson; Katie N Hunt; Dana H Whaley Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.138