Charline Lasnon1, Nicolas Coudrais2, Benjamin Houdu3, Catherine Nganoa2, Thibault Salomon2, Blandine Enilorac2, Nicolas Aide4. 1. Centre François Baclesse, Nuclear Medicine Department, Caen, France; INSERM ANTICIPE, Normandie University, Caen, France. 2. CHU de Caen, Nuclear Medicine Department, Caen, France. 3. CHU de Caen, Nuclear Medicine Department, Caen, France; Normandie University, France. 4. CHU de Caen, Nuclear Medicine Department, Caen, France; INSERM ANTICIPE, Normandie University, Caen, France; Normandie University, France. Electronic address: aide-n@chu-caen.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To seek for the minimal duration per bed position with a digital PET system without compromising image quality and lesion detection in patients requiring fast 18F-FDG PET imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 cancer patients experiencing pain or dyspnea and 9 pediatric patients were scanned on a Vereos system. List mode data were reconstructed with decreasing time frame down to 10 s per bed position. Noise was evaluated in the liver, blood pool and muscle, and using target-to-background ratios. Five PET readers recorded image quality, number of clinically relevant foci and of involved anatomical sites in reconstructions ranging from 60 to 10 s per bed position, compared to the standard 90 s reconstruction. RESULTS: The following reconstructions, which harboured a noise not significantly higher than that of the standard reconstruction, were selected for clinical evaluation: 1iterations/10 subsets/20sec (1i10 s20sec), 1i10 s30sec, and 2i10 sPSF60sec. Only the 60 s per bed acquisition displayed similar target-to-background ratios compared to the standard reconstruction, but mean ratios were still higher than 2.0 for the 30 s reconstruction. Inter-rater agreement for the number of involved anatomical sites and detected lesion was good or almost perfect (Kappa: 0.64-0.91) for all acquisitions. In particular, kappa for the 30 s per bed acquisition was 0.78 and 0.91 for lesion and anatomical sites number, respectively. Intra-rater agreement was also excellent for the 30 s reconstruction (kappa = 0.72). Median estimated total PET acquisition time for the 1i10 s30sec, and the standard reconstruction were 4 and 12 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fast imaging is feasible with state-of-the-art PET systems. Acquisitions of 30 s per bed position are feasible with the Vereos system, requiring optimization of reconstruction parameters.
PURPOSE: To seek for the minimal duration per bed position with a digital PET system without compromising image quality and lesion detection in patients requiring fast 18F-FDG PET imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 cancerpatients experiencing pain or dyspnea and 9 pediatric patients were scanned on a Vereos system. List mode data were reconstructed with decreasing time frame down to 10 s per bed position. Noise was evaluated in the liver, blood pool and muscle, and using target-to-background ratios. Five PET readers recorded image quality, number of clinically relevant foci and of involved anatomical sites in reconstructions ranging from 60 to 10 s per bed position, compared to the standard 90 s reconstruction. RESULTS: The following reconstructions, which harboured a noise not significantly higher than that of the standard reconstruction, were selected for clinical evaluation: 1iterations/10 subsets/20sec (1i10 s20sec), 1i10 s30sec, and 2i10 sPSF60sec. Only the 60 s per bed acquisition displayed similar target-to-background ratios compared to the standard reconstruction, but mean ratios were still higher than 2.0 for the 30 s reconstruction. Inter-rater agreement for the number of involved anatomical sites and detected lesion was good or almost perfect (Kappa: 0.64-0.91) for all acquisitions. In particular, kappa for the 30 s per bed acquisition was 0.78 and 0.91 for lesion and anatomical sites number, respectively. Intra-rater agreement was also excellent for the 30 s reconstruction (kappa = 0.72). Median estimated total PET acquisition time for the 1i10 s30sec, and the standard reconstruction were 4 and 12 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fast imaging is feasible with state-of-the-art PET systems. Acquisitions of 30 s per bed position are feasible with the Vereos system, requiring optimization of reconstruction parameters.
Authors: David Kersting; Walter Jentzen; Miriam Sraieb; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Maurizio Conti; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Michael Nader; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Manuel Weber Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: David Kersting; Stephan Settelmeier; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Ken Herrmann; Robert Seifert; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Pedro Fragoso Costa; Walter Jentzen; Alissa Brahmer; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Fadi Zarrad; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Ken Herrmann; Maurizio Conti; Robert Seifert; Miriam Sraieb; Manuel Weber; David Kersting Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.638
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
Authors: David Dudoignon; David A Pattison; Damien Legallois; Rodney J Hicks; Nicolas Aide Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Abolfazl Mehranian; Scott D Wollenweber; Matthew D Walker; Kevin M Bradley; Patrick A Fielding; Kuan-Hao Su; Robert Johnsen; Fotis Kotasidis; Floris P Jansen; Daniel R McGowan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236