Jeffrey P Schmall1,2, Suleman Surti2, Hansel J Otero3, Sabah Servaes3, Joel S Karp2, Lisa J States3. 1. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and jeffrey.schmall@united-imaging.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of whole-body 18F-FDG imaging using a PET/MRI scanner with time-of-flight capability for low-dose clinical imaging of pediatric patients. In addition to clinically acquired image data using a dosing regimen of 3.7 MBq/kg, images from simulated low-dose regimens (1.9-0.41 MBq/kg) were evaluated using several metrics: SUV quantitation, qualitative image quality, and lesion detectability. Methods: Low-dose images were generated by truncating the list-mode PET data to reduce the count statistics. Changes in PET quantitation for low-dose images were assessed using volume-of-interest analysis of healthy tissue and suspected lesions. Three pediatric radiologists reviewed the image volumes without knowing the dose level. Qualitative image quality was assessed on the basis of Likert scoring. Radiologists were also asked to identify suspected lesions within the liver for PET-only and PET/MR images. Lesion detectability was measured using a receiver-operating-characteristic study and quantified using a free-response receiving-operating-characteristic (FROC) methodology to assess changes in performance for low-dose images. Results: Our analysis of volume-of-interest quantitation showed that SUVs remain stable down to ⅓ dose (1.2 MBq/kg). Likert scoring of PET/MR images showed no noticeable trend with dose level; however, scores of PET-only images were lower for low-dose scans, with a 12% reduction for ⅓-dose images compared with full-dose images. There was minimal change in total lesion count for different dose levels; however, all 3 readers had an increase in false-negatives for ⅓-dose images compared with full-dose images. Using the FROC methodology to quantify lesion-detection performance for human observers, no significant differences were observed for the 3 dosing levels when using the averaged reader data (all P values > 0.103). For all readers, the FROC performance was higher for PET/MRI than for PET alone. Conclusion: Reductions to the lowest recommended pediatric dosing regimens are possible when using PET/MRI. The data suggest that the administered dose can be decreased to 2.46 MBq/kg, a 33% reduction in PET activity, with no degradation in image quality, leading to a corresponding reduction in absorbed dose.
In this study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of whole-body 18F-FDG imaging using a PET/MRI scanner with time-of-flight capability for low-dose clinical imaging of pediatric patients. In addition to clinically acquired image data using a dosing regimen of 3.7 MBq/kg, images from simulated low-dose regimens (1.9-0.41 MBq/kg) were evaluated using several metrics: SUV quantitation, qualitative image quality, and lesion detectability. Methods: Low-dose images were generated by truncating the list-mode PET data to reduce the count statistics. Changes in PET quantitation for low-dose images were assessed using volume-of-interest analysis of healthy tissue and suspected lesions. Three pediatric radiologists reviewed the image volumes without knowing the dose level. Qualitative image quality was assessed on the basis of Likert scoring. Radiologists were also asked to identify suspected lesions within the liver for PET-only and PET/MR images. Lesion detectability was measured using a receiver-operating-characteristic study and quantified using a free-response receiving-operating-characteristic (FROC) methodology to assess changes in performance for low-dose images. Results: Our analysis of volume-of-interest quantitation showed that SUVs remain stable down to ⅓ dose (1.2 MBq/kg). Likert scoring of PET/MR images showed no noticeable trend with dose level; however, scores of PET-only images were lower for low-dose scans, with a 12% reduction for ⅓-dose images compared with full-dose images. There was minimal change in total lesion count for different dose levels; however, all 3 readers had an increase in false-negatives for ⅓-dose images compared with full-dose images. Using the FROC methodology to quantify lesion-detection performance for human observers, no significant differences were observed for the 3 dosing levels when using the averaged reader data (all P values > 0.103). For all readers, the FROC performance was higher for PET/MRI than for PET alone. Conclusion: Reductions to the lowest recommended pediatric dosing regimens are possible when using PET/MRI. The data suggest that the administered dose can be decreased to 2.46 MBq/kg, a 33% reduction in PET activity, with no degradation in image quality, leading to a corresponding reduction in absorbed dose.
Authors: Craig S Levin; Sri Harsha Maramraju; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Timothy W Deller; Gaspar Delso; Floris Jansen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Kitiwat Khamwan; Shannon E O'Reilly; Donika Plyku; Alison Goodkind; Anders Josefsson; Xinhua Cao; Frederic H Fahey; S Ted Treves; Wesley E Bolch; George Sgouros Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Adam M Alessio; Marla Sammer; Grace S Phillips; Vivek Manchanda; Brandt C Mohr; Marguerite T Parisi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ting Xia; Adam M Alessio; Bruno De Man; Ravindra Manjeshwar; Evren Asma; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sergios Gatidis; Holger Schmidt; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Nina F Schwenzer; Jürgen F Schäfer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Adam M Alessio; Paul E Kinahan; Vivek Manchanda; Victor Ghioni; Lisa Aldape; Marguerite T Parisi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joel S Karp; Varsha Viswanath; Michael J Geagan; Gerd Muehllehner; Austin R Pantel; Michael J Parma; Amy E Perkins; Jeffrey P Schmall; Matthew E Werner; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Haifa Al-Sarhani; Ravi V Gottumukkala; Angelo Don S Grasparil; Eric L Tung; Michael S Gee; Mary-Louise C Greer Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Christina P W Cox; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Frederik A Verburg; Tessa Brabander; Mark Konijnenberg; Marcel Segbers Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Hunor Kertész; Thomas Beyer; Kevin London; Hamda Saleh; David Chung; Ivo Rausch; Jacobo Cal-Gonzalez; Theo Kitsos; Peter L Kench Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Roelof van Ewijk; Reineke A Schoot; Monika Sparber-Sauer; Simone A J Ter Horst; Nina Jehanno; Lise Borgwardt; Bart de Keizer; Johannes H M Merks; Alberto de Luca; Kieran McHugh; Thekla von Kalle; Jürgen F Schäfer; Rick R van Rijn Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-06-17