Wendy Siman1,2, S Cheenu Kappadath3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, Tennessee. 2. University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; and skappadath@mdanderson.org. 4. University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
Continuous-bed-motion (CBM) acquisition mode has been made commercially available in PET/CT scanners. CBM mode is designed for whole-body imaging, with a long scan length (multiple axial fields of view [aFOVs]) and short acquisition duration (2-3 min/aFOV). PET/CT has recently been used after 90Y-microsphere therapy to quantify 90Y activity distribution in the liver. Here we compared counting efficiencies along the bed-motion direction (z-axis) between CBM and step-and-shoot (SS) acquisition modes for limited-view organ scans, such as 90Y PET/CT liver studies, that have short scan lengths (≤2 aFOVs) and long acquisition durations (10-30 min/aFOV). Methods: The counting efficiencies, that is, analytic sensitivities, in SS mode (single-aFOV and multiple-aFOV scans) and CBM mode were theoretically derived and experimentally validated using a cylindric 68Ge phantom. The sensitivities along the z-axis were compared between the SS and CBM modes. Results: The analytic and experimental count profiles were in good agreement, validating the analytic models. For fixed scan durations, the overall coincidence counting efficiency in CBM mode was lower (∼60%) than those in SS modes, and the maximum sensitivity in CBM mode was 50% or less of that in 1-aFOV SS mode and 100% or less of that in 2-aFOV SS mode. Conclusion: The ability of CBM mode to tailor-fit the PET/CT scan length and local scan duration is not realized in studies with a short scan length (≤30 cm) and long scan duration (20 min/aFOV for the scanner). SS acquisition mode is preferable to CBM mode for limited-view organ and count-starved scans, such as 90Y PET/CT liver scans, because of the higher counting efficiency of SS mode, which leads to better image quality and quantification precision.
Continuous-bed-motion (CBM) acquisition mode has been made commercially available in PET/CT scanners. CBM mode is designed for whole-body imaging, with a long scan length (multiple axial fields of view [aFOVs]) and short acquisition duration (2-3 min/aFOV). PET/CT has recently been used after 90Y-microsphere therapy to quantify 90Y activity distribution in the liver. Here we compared counting efficiencies along the bed-motion direction (z-axis) between CBM and step-and-shoot (SS) acquisition modes for limited-view organ scans, such as 90Y PET/CT liver studies, that have short scan lengths (≤2 aFOVs) and long acquisition durations (10-30 min/aFOV). Methods: The counting efficiencies, that is, analytic sensitivities, in SS mode (single-aFOV and multiple-aFOV scans) and CBM mode were theoretically derived and experimentally validated using a cylindric 68Ge phantom. The sensitivities along the z-axis were compared between the SS and CBM modes. Results: The analytic and experimental count profiles were in good agreement, validating the analytic models. For fixed scan durations, the overall coincidence counting efficiency in CBM mode was lower (∼60%) than those in SS modes, and the maximum sensitivity in CBM mode was 50% or less of that in 1-aFOV SS mode and 100% or less of that in 2-aFOV SS mode. Conclusion: The ability of CBM mode to tailor-fit the PET/CT scan length and local scan duration is not realized in studies with a short scan length (≤30 cm) and long scan duration (20 min/aFOV for the scanner). SS acquisition mode is preferable to CBM mode for limited-view organ and count-starved scans, such as 90Y PET/CT liver scans, because of the higher counting efficiency of SS mode, which leads to better image quality and quantification precision.
Authors: Dustin R Osborne; Shelley Acuff; Sarah Cruise; Mumtaz Syed; Melissa Neveu; Alan Stuckey; Yong Bradley Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-15
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Marnix G E H Lam; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Max A Viergever; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Manuel Weber; Walter Jentzen; Regina Hofferber; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Maurizio Conti; Axel Wetter; David Kersting; Christoph Rischpler; Pedro Fragoso Costa Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-02-28 Impact factor: 3.138