Yi-Qiu Zhang1,2,3, Peng-Cheng Hu1,2,3, Run-Ze Wu4, Yu-Shen Gu1,2,3, Shu-Guang Chen1,2,3, Hao-Jun Yu1,2,3, Xiang-Qing Wang1,2,3, Jun Song1,2,3, Hong-Cheng Shi5,6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, 180 Fenglin Rd., Shanghai, China. 2. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China. 4. United Imaging Research, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, 180 Fenglin Rd., Shanghai, China. Shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 6. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 7. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China. Shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the effects of short acquisition time on the image quality and the lesion detectability of oncological 18F-FDG total-body PET/CT. METHODS: Nineteen oncological patients (6/13 women/men, age 65.6 ± 9.4 years) underwent total-body PET/CT on uEXPLORER scanner using 3D list mode. The administration of 18F-FDG was weight-based (4.4 MBq/kg). The acquisition time was 900 s, and PET data were reconstructed into 900-, 180-, 120-, 60-, 30-, and 18-s duration groups. The subjective PET image quality was scored using a 5-point scale (5, excellent; 1, poor) in 3 perspectives: overall quality, noise, and lesion conspicuity. The objective image quality was evaluated by SUVmax and standard deviation (SD) of the liver, SUVmax of the tumor, and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). The lesion detectability was the percentage of identifiable lesions in the groups of 180 to 18 s using the group 900 s as reference. RESULTS: Our results showed that sufficient and acceptable subjective image quality could be achieved with 60- and 30-s groups, and good image quality scores were given to 180- and 120-s groups without significant difference. For shortened acquisition time, SD was increased, while SUVmax of tumor and TBR remained unchanged. The lesion detectability was decreased with shorter acquisition time, but the detection performance could be maintained until the 60-s group compared with the 900-s group, although the image quality degraded. CONCLUSION: The total-body PET/CT can significantly shorten the acquisition time with maintained lesion detectability and image quality.
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the effects of short acquisition time on the image quality and the lesion detectability of oncological 18F-FDG total-body PET/CT. METHODS: Nineteen oncological patients (6/13 women/men, age 65.6 ± 9.4 years) underwent total-body PET/CT on uEXPLORER scanner using 3D list mode. The administration of 18F-FDG was weight-based (4.4 MBq/kg). The acquisition time was 900 s, and PET data were reconstructed into 900-, 180-, 120-, 60-, 30-, and 18-s duration groups. The subjective PET image quality was scored using a 5-point scale (5, excellent; 1, poor) in 3 perspectives: overall quality, noise, and lesion conspicuity. The objective image quality was evaluated by SUVmax and standard deviation (SD) of the liver, SUVmax of the tumor, and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). The lesion detectability was the percentage of identifiable lesions in the groups of 180 to 18 s using the group 900 s as reference. RESULTS: Our results showed that sufficient and acceptable subjective image quality could be achieved with 60- and 30-s groups, and good image quality scores were given to 180- and 120-s groups without significant difference. For shortened acquisition time, SD was increased, while SUVmax of tumor and TBR remained unchanged. The lesion detectability was decreased with shorter acquisition time, but the detection performance could be maintained until the 60-s group compared with the 900-s group, although the image quality degraded. CONCLUSION: The total-body PET/CT can significantly shorten the acquisition time with maintained lesion detectability and image quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
FDG; Image quality; Lesion detectability; PET/CT; Short acquisition time; Total-body PET
Authors: Ramsey D Badawi; Hongcheng Shi; Pengcheng Hu; Shuguang Chen; Tianyi Xu; Patricia M Price; Yu Ding; Benjamin A Spencer; Lorenzo Nardo; Weiping Liu; Jun Bao; Terry Jones; Hongdi Li; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Simon R Cherry; Terry Jones; Joel S Karp; Jinyi Qi; William W Moses; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Roberta Matheoud; Lucia Leva; Chiara Secco; Gianmauro Sacchetti; Patrizia Della Monica; Marco Brambilla; Eugenio Inglese Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Tinsu Pan; Samuel A Einstein; Srinivas Cheenu Kappadath; Kira S Grogg; Cristina Lois Gomez; Adam M Alessio; William C Hunter; Georges El Fakhri; Paul E Kinahan; Osama R Mawlawi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Charlotte S van der Vos; Daniëlle Koopman; Sjoerd Rijnsdorp; Albert J Arends; Ronald Boellaard; Jorn A van Dalen; Mark Lubberink; Antoon T M Willemsen; Eric P Visser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Austin R Pantel; Varsha Viswanath; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Jacob G Dubroff; Gerd Muehllehner; Michael J Parma; Daniel A Pryma; Erin K Schubert; David A Mankoff; Joel S Karp Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Xuezhu Zhang; Simon R Cherry; Zhaoheng Xie; Hongcheng Shi; Ramsey D Badawi; Jinyi Qi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hasan Sari; Mohammadreza Teimoorisichani; Clemens Mingels; Ian Alberts; Vladimir Panin; Deepak Bharkhada; Song Xue; George Prenosil; Kuangyu Shi; Maurizio Conti; Axel Rominger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nicolas Aide; Charline Lasnon; Adam Kesner; Craig S Levin; Irene Buvat; Andrei Iagaru; Ken Hermann; Ramsey D Badawi; Simon R Cherry; Kevin M Bradley; Daniel R McGowan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236