David F C Hsu1,2, Ezgi Ilan3,4, William T Peterson5, Jorge Uribe5, Mark Lubberink3,4, Craig S Levin6,2,7,8. 1. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 2. Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 3. Nuclear Medicine and PET, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Medical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. GE Healthcare, Waukesha Wisconsin. 6. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California cslevin@stanford.edu. 7. Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and. 8. Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Abstract
This article presents system performance studies for the Discovery MI PET/CT system, a new time-of-flight system based on silicon photomultipliers. System performance and clinical imaging were compared between this next-generation system and other commercially available PET/CT and PET/MR systems, as well as between different reconstruction algorithms. Methods: Spatial resolution, sensitivity, noise-equivalent counting rate, scatter fraction, counting rate accuracy, and image quality were characterized with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU-2 2012 standards. Energy resolution and coincidence time resolution were measured. Tests were conducted independently on two Discovery MI scanners installed at Stanford University and Uppsala University, and the results were averaged. Back-to-back patient scans were also performed between the Discovery MI, Discovery 690 PET/CT, and SIGNA PET/MR systems. Clinical images were reconstructed using both ordered-subset expectation maximization and Q.Clear (block-sequential regularized expectation maximization with point-spread function modeling) and were examined qualitatively. Results: The averaged full widths at half maximum (FWHMs) of the radial/tangential/axial spatial resolution reconstructed with filtered backprojection at 1, 10, and 20 cm from the system center were, respectively, 4.10/4.19/4.48 mm, 5.47/4.49/6.01 mm, and 7.53/4.90/6.10 mm. The averaged sensitivity was 13.7 cps/kBq at the center of the field of view. The averaged peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 193.4 kcps at 21.9 kBq/mL, with a scatter fraction of 40.6%. The averaged contrast recovery coefficients for the image-quality phantom were 53.7, 64.0, 73.1, 82.7, 86.8, and 90.7 for the 10-, 13-, 17-, 22-, 28-, and 37-mm-diameter spheres, respectively. The average photopeak energy resolution was 9.40% FWHM, and the average coincidence time resolution was 375.4 ps FWHM. Clinical image comparisons between the PET/CT systems demonstrated the high quality of the Discovery MI. Comparisons between the Discovery MI and SIGNA showed a similar spatial resolution and overall imaging performance. Lastly, the results indicated significantly enhanced image quality and contrast-to-noise performance for Q.Clear, compared with ordered-subset expectation maximization. Conclusion: Excellent performance was achieved with the Discovery MI, including 375 ps FWHM coincidence time resolution and sensitivity of 14 cps/kBq. Comparisons between reconstruction algorithms and other multimodal silicon photomultiplier and non-silicon photomultiplier PET detector system designs indicated that performance can be substantially enhanced with this next-generation system.
This article presents system performance studies for the Discovery MI PET/CT system, a new time-of-flight system based on silicon photomultipliers. System performance and clinical imaging were compared between this next-generation system and other commercially available PET/CT and PET/MR systems, as well as between different reconstruction algorithms. Methods: Spatial resolution, sensitivity, noise-equivalent counting rate, scatter fraction, counting rate accuracy, and image quality were characterized with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU-2 2012 standards. Energy resolution and coincidence time resolution were measured. Tests were conducted independently on two Discovery MI scanners installed at Stanford University and Uppsala University, and the results were averaged. Back-to-back patient scans were also performed between the Discovery MI, Discovery 690 PET/CT, and SIGNA PET/MR systems. Clinical images were reconstructed using both ordered-subset expectation maximization and Q.Clear (block-sequential regularized expectation maximization with point-spread function modeling) and were examined qualitatively. Results: The averaged full widths at half maximum (FWHMs) of the radial/tangential/axial spatial resolution reconstructed with filtered backprojection at 1, 10, and 20 cm from the system center were, respectively, 4.10/4.19/4.48 mm, 5.47/4.49/6.01 mm, and 7.53/4.90/6.10 mm. The averaged sensitivity was 13.7 cps/kBq at the center of the field of view. The averaged peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 193.4 kcps at 21.9 kBq/mL, with a scatter fraction of 40.6%. The averaged contrast recovery coefficients for the image-quality phantom were 53.7, 64.0, 73.1, 82.7, 86.8, and 90.7 for the 10-, 13-, 17-, 22-, 28-, and 37-mm-diameter spheres, respectively. The average photopeak energy resolution was 9.40% FWHM, and the average coincidence time resolution was 375.4 ps FWHM. Clinical image comparisons between the PET/CT systems demonstrated the high quality of the Discovery MI. Comparisons between the Discovery MI and SIGNA showed a similar spatial resolution and overall imaging performance. Lastly, the results indicated significantly enhanced image quality and contrast-to-noise performance for Q.Clear, compared with ordered-subset expectation maximization. Conclusion: Excellent performance was achieved with the Discovery MI, including 375 ps FWHM coincidence time resolution and sensitivity of 14 cps/kBq. Comparisons between reconstruction algorithms and other multimodal silicon photomultiplier and non-silicon photomultiplier PET detector system designs indicated that performance can be substantially enhanced with this next-generation 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: Laura Moliner; Maria J Rodríguez-Alvarez; Juan V Catret; Antonio González; Víctor Ilisie; José M Benlloch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.379