Literature DB >> 33088352

Comparison of Image Quality and Semi-quantitative Measurements with Digital PET/CT and Standard PET/CT from Different Vendors.

Sung Hoon Kim1,2, Bong-Il Song2, Hae Won Kim2, Kyoung Sook Won2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the concordance and equivalence of results between the newly acquired digital PET/CT(dPET) and the standard PET/CT (sPET) to investigate possible differences in visual and semi-quantitative analyses.
METHODS: A total of 30 participants were enrolled and underwent a single 18F-FDG injection followed by dual PET/CT scans, by a dPET scan, and immediately after by the sPET scan or vice versa. Two readers reviewed overall image quality using a 5-point scale and counted the number of suggestive 18F-FDG avid lesions. The SUV values were measured in the background organs and in hypermetabolic target lesions. Additionally, we objectively evaluated image quality using the liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
RESULTS: The dPET identified 4 additional 18F-FDG avid lesions in 3 of 30 participants with improved visual image quality. The standard deviations of SUV of the background organs were significantly lower with DigitalPET than with sPET, and dPET could acquire images with better SNR (11.13 ± 2.01 vs. 8.71 ± 1.32, P < 0.001). The reliability of SUV values between scanners showed excellent agreement. Bland-Altman plot analysis of 81 lesions showed an acceptable agreement between scanners for most of the SUVmax and SUVpeak values. No relationship between the SUV values and time delays of dual PET/CT acquisition was found.
CONCLUSIONS: The dPET provides improved image quality and lesion detectability than the sPET. The semi-quantitative values of the two PET/CT systems of different vendors are comparable. This pilot study will be an important basis for possible interchangeable use of either system in clinical practice. © Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  18F-FDG; Digital PET; Image quality; PET/CT; SiPM; Silicon photomultiplier

Year:  2020        PMID: 33088352      PMCID: PMC7560684          DOI: 10.1007/s13139-020-00661-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1869-3474


  18 in total

Review 1.  Recent Advances and Future Progress in PET Instrumentation.

Authors:  Piotr J Slomka; Tinsu Pan; Guido Germano
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.446

2.  Digital PET/CT: a new intriguing chance for clinical nuclear medicine and personalized molecular imaging.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci; Nicoletta Urbano
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT.

Authors:  Kei Wagatsuma; Kenta Miwa; Muneyuki Sakata; Keiichi Oda; Haruka Ono; Masashi Kameyama; Jun Toyohara; Kenji Ishii
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.685

4.  Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT.

Authors:  Diego Alfonso López-Mora; Albert Flotats; Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo; Valle Camacho; Alejandro Fernández; Agustí Ruiz; Joan Duch; Marina Sizova; Anna Domènech; Montserrat Estorch; Ignasi Carrió
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Image quality and semi-quantitative measurements of the Siemens Biograph Vision PET/CT: Initial experiences and comparison with Siemens Biograph mCT PET/CT.

Authors:  Joyce van Sluis; Ronald Boellaard; Ananthi Somasundaram; Paul van Snick; Ronald Borra; Rudi Dierckx; Gilles Stormezand; Andor Glaudemans; Walter Noordzij
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of a Digital PET Prototype in Patients with Oncologic Diseases: Initial Experience and Comparison with Analog PET.

Authors:  Nghi C Nguyen; Jose L Vercher-Conejero; Abdus Sattar; Michael A Miller; Piotr J Maniawski; David W Jordan; Raymond F Muzic; Kuan-Hao Su; James K O'Donnell; Peter F Faulhaber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  18F-FDG silicon photomultiplier PET/CT: A pilot study comparing semi-quantitative measurements with standard PET/CT.

Authors:  Lucia Baratto; Sonya Young Park; Negin Hatami; Guido Davidzon; Shyam Srinivas; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Andrei Iagaru
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Advanced Functional Tumor Imaging and Precision Nuclear Medicine Enabled by Digital PET Technologies.

Authors:  Chadwick L Wright; Katherine Binzel; Jun Zhang; Michael V Knopp
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 3.161

9.  A method to assess image quality for Low-dose PET: analysis of SNR, CNR, bias and image noise.

Authors:  Jianhua Yan; Josh Schaefferkoette; Maurizio Conti; David Townsend
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Noise reduction using a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner.

Authors:  Paulo R R V Caribé; M Koole; Yves D'Asseler; B Van Den Broeck; S Vandenberghe
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2019-12-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.