Spencer C Behr1, Emma Bahroos2, Randall A Hawkins1, Lorenzo Nardo3, Vahid Ravanfar1, Emily V Capbarat1, Youngho Seo1,4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 185 Berry Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 185 Berry Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Emma.Bahroos@ucsf.edu. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, Davis Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Newer high-performance time-of-flight (TOF) positron emission tomography (PET) systems have the capability to preserve diagnostic image quality with low count density, while maintaining a high raw photon detection sensitivity that would allow for a reduction in injected dose or rapid data acquisition. To assess this, we performed quantitative and visual assessments of the PET images acquired using a highly sensitive (23.3 cps/kBq) large field of view (25-cm axial) silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-based TOF PET (400-ps timing resolution) integrated with 3 T-MRI in comparison to PET images acquired on non-TOF PET/x-ray computed tomography (CT) systems. PROCEDURES: Whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) PET/CT was acquired for 15 patients followed by whole body PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an average injected dose of 325 ± 84 MBq. The PET list mode data from PET/MRI were reconstructed using full datasets (4 min/bed) and reduced datasets (2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 min/bed). Qualitative assessment between PET/CT and PET/MR images were made. A Likert-type scale between 1 and 5, 1 for non-diagnostic, 3 equivalent to PET/CT, and 5 superior quality, was used. Maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) of normal tissues and lesions detected were measured and compared. RESULTS: Mean visual assessment scores were 3.54 ± 0.32, 3.62 ± 0.38, and 3.69 ± 0.35 for the brain and 3.05 ± 0.49, 3.71 ± 0.45, and 4.14 ± 0.44 for the whole-body maximum intensity projections (MIPs) for 1, 2, and 4 min/bed PET/MR images, respectively. The SUVmean values for normal tissues were lower and statistically significant for images acquired at 4, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 min/bed on the PET/MR, with values of - 18 ± 28 % (p < 0.001), - 16 ± 29 % (p = 0.001), - 16 ± 31 % (p = 0.002), - 14 ± 35 % (p < 0.001), and - 13 ± 34 % (p = 0.002), respectively. SUVmax and SUVpeak values of all lesions were higher and statistically significant (p < 0.05) for 4, 2, 1, 0.50, and 0.25 min/bed PET/MR datasets. CONCLUSION: High-sensitivity TOF PET showed comparable but still better visual image quality even at a much reduced activity in comparison to lower-sensitivity non-TOF PET. Our data translates to a seven times reduction in either injection dose for the same time or total scan time for the same injected dose. This "ultra-sensitivity" PET system provides a path to clinically acceptable extremely low-dose FDG PET studies (e.g., sub 1 mCi injection or sub-mSv effective dose) or PET studies as short as 1 min/bed (e.g., 6 min of total scan time) to cover whole body without compromising diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: Newer high-performance time-of-flight (TOF) positron emission tomography (PET) systems have the capability to preserve diagnostic image quality with low count density, while maintaining a high raw photon detection sensitivity that would allow for a reduction in injected dose or rapid data acquisition. To assess this, we performed quantitative and visual assessments of the PET images acquired using a highly sensitive (23.3 cps/kBq) large field of view (25-cm axial) silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-based TOF PET (400-ps timing resolution) integrated with 3 T-MRI in comparison to PET images acquired on non-TOF PET/x-ray computed tomography (CT) systems. PROCEDURES: Whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) PET/CT was acquired for 15 patients followed by whole body PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an average injected dose of 325 ± 84 MBq. The PET list mode data from PET/MRI were reconstructed using full datasets (4 min/bed) and reduced datasets (2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 min/bed). Qualitative assessment between PET/CT and PET/MR images were made. A Likert-type scale between 1 and 5, 1 for non-diagnostic, 3 equivalent to PET/CT, and 5 superior quality, was used. Maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) of normal tissues and lesions detected were measured and compared. RESULTS: Mean visual assessment scores were 3.54 ± 0.32, 3.62 ± 0.38, and 3.69 ± 0.35 for the brain and 3.05 ± 0.49, 3.71 ± 0.45, and 4.14 ± 0.44 for the whole-body maximum intensity projections (MIPs) for 1, 2, and 4 min/bed PET/MR images, respectively. The SUVmean values for normal tissues were lower and statistically significant for images acquired at 4, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 min/bed on the PET/MR, with values of - 18 ± 28 % (p < 0.001), - 16 ± 29 % (p = 0.001), - 16 ± 31 % (p = 0.002), - 14 ± 35 % (p < 0.001), and - 13 ± 34 % (p = 0.002), respectively. SUVmax and SUVpeak values of all lesions were higher and statistically significant (p < 0.05) for 4, 2, 1, 0.50, and 0.25 min/bed PET/MR datasets. CONCLUSION: High-sensitivity TOF PET showed comparable but still better visual image quality even at a much reduced activity in comparison to lower-sensitivity non-TOF PET. Our data translates to a seven times reduction in either injection dose for the same time or total scan time for the same injected dose. This "ultra-sensitivity" PET system provides a path to clinically acceptable extremely low-dose FDG PET studies (e.g., sub 1 mCi injection or sub-mSv effective dose) or PET studies as short as 1 min/bed (e.g., 6 min of total scan time) to cover whole body without compromising diagnostic performance.
Authors: Marco Brambilla; Chiara Secco; Marco Dominietto; Roberta Matheoud; Gianmauro Sacchetti; Eugenio Inglese Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dominique Delbeke; R Edward Coleman; Milton J Guiberteau; Manuel L Brown; Henry D Royal; Barry A Siegel; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland; J Anthony Parker; Karl Hubner; Michael G Stabin; George Zubal; Marc Kachelriess; Valerie Cronin; Scott Holbrook Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cristina Lois; Bjoern W Jakoby; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Barker; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Vladimir Y Panin; Dan J Kadrmas; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gary A Ulaner; Serge K Lyashchenko; Christopher Riedl; Shutian Ruan; Pat B Zanzonico; Diana Lake; Komal Jhaveri; Brian Zeglis; Jason S Lewis; Joseph A O'Donoghue Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Youngho Seo; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Kristen A Wangerin; Timothy W Deller; Yung-Hua Wang; Salma Jivan; Maureen P Kohi; Rahul Aggarwal; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; Michael J Evans Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Jeffrey P Schmall; Suleman Surti; Hansel J Otero; Sabah Servaes; Joel S Karp; Lisa J States Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Silvano Gnesin; Christine Kieffer; Konstantinos Zeimpekis; Jean-Pierre Papazyan; Renaud Guignard; John O Prior; Francis R Verdun; Thiago V M Lima Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2020-01-06