PURPOSE: In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the positron emission tomography (PET) performance of, to the best of our knowledge, the third commercially available whole-body integrated PET/magnetic resonance (MR) system. METHODS: The PET system performance was measured following the NEMA standards with and without simultaneous MR operation. PET spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count-rate performance, accuracy of count losses and random corrections, image quality, and time-of-flight (TOF) resolution were quantitatively evaluated. Clinical scans were acquired at the PET/MR system and compared with images acquired at a PET/CT with the same digital detector technology. RESULTS: Measurement results of essential PET performance were reported in the form of MR idle (MR pulsing). The axial, radial, and tangential spatial resolutions were measured as 2.72 mm (2.73 mm), 2.86 mm (2.85 mm), and 2.81 mm (2.82 mm) FWHM, respectively, at 1 cm radial offset. The NECR peak was measured as 129.2 kcps (129.5 kcps) at 14.7 kBq mL-1 (14.2 kBq mL-1). The scatter fraction at NECR peak was 37.9% (36.5%), and the maximum slice error below NECR was 4.1% (4.5%). Contrast recovery coefficients ranged from 51.8% (52.3%) for 10 mm hot sphere to 87.3% (87.2%) for 37 mm cold sphere. TOF resolution at 5.3 kBq mL-1 was measured at 535 ps (540 ps). With point source, TOF was measured to be 474 ps (485 ps). Clinical scans revealed similar image quality from the PET/MR and the comparative PET/CT system. CONCLUSION: The PET performance of the newly introduced integrated PET/MR system is not significantly affected by the simultaneous operation of an MR sequence (2-point DIXON sequence). Measurement results demonstrate comparable performance with other state-of-the-art PET/MR systems. The clinical benefits of high spatial resolution and long axial coverage remain to be further evaluated in specific clinical imaging applications.
PURPOSE: In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the positron emission tomography (PET) performance of, to the best of our knowledge, the third commercially available whole-body integrated PET/magnetic resonance (MR) system. METHODS: The PET system performance was measured following the NEMA standards with and without simultaneous MR operation. PET spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count-rate performance, accuracy of count losses and random corrections, image quality, and time-of-flight (TOF) resolution were quantitatively evaluated. Clinical scans were acquired at the PET/MR system and compared with images acquired at a PET/CT with the same digital detector technology. RESULTS: Measurement results of essential PET performance were reported in the form of MR idle (MR pulsing). The axial, radial, and tangential spatial resolutions were measured as 2.72 mm (2.73 mm), 2.86 mm (2.85 mm), and 2.81 mm (2.82 mm) FWHM, respectively, at 1 cm radial offset. The NECR peak was measured as 129.2 kcps (129.5 kcps) at 14.7 kBq mL-1 (14.2 kBq mL-1). The scatter fraction at NECR peak was 37.9% (36.5%), and the maximum slice error below NECR was 4.1% (4.5%). Contrast recovery coefficients ranged from 51.8% (52.3%) for 10 mm hot sphere to 87.3% (87.2%) for 37 mm cold sphere. TOF resolution at 5.3 kBq mL-1 was measured at 535 ps (540 ps). With point source, TOF was measured to be 474 ps (485 ps). Clinical scans revealed similar image quality from the PET/MR and the comparative PET/CT system. CONCLUSION: The PET performance of the newly introduced integrated PET/MR system is not significantly affected by the simultaneous operation of an MR sequence (2-point DIXON sequence). Measurement results demonstrate comparable performance with other state-of-the-art PET/MR systems. The clinical benefits of high spatial resolution and long axial coverage remain to be further evaluated in specific clinical imaging applications.
Entities:
Keywords:
NEMA NU2-2012; PET/MR; Performance evaluation
Authors: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; H Barthel; A J Beer; J Bremerich; J Czernin; A Drzezga; C Franzius; V Goh; M Hartenbach; H Iida; A Kjaer; C la Fougère; C N Ladefoged; I Law; K Nikolaou; H H Quick; O Sabri; J Schäfer; M Schäfers; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Dale L Bailey; Henryk Barthel; Bettina Beuthin-Baumann; Thomas Beyer; Sotirios Bisdas; Ronald Boellaard; Johannes Czernin; Alexander Drzezga; Ulrike Ernemann; Christiane Franzius; Brigitte Gückel; Rupert Handgretinger; Markus Hartenbach; Dirk Hellwig; Helen Nadel; Stephan G Nekolla; Thomas Pfluger; Bernd J Pichler; Harald H Quick; Osama Sabri; Bernhard Sattler; Jürgen Schäfer; Fritz Schick; Barry A Siegel; Heinz P Schlemmer; Nina F Schwenzer; Jörg van den Hoff; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Hans F Wehrl Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ronan Abgral; Marc R Dweck; Maria Giovanna Trivieri; Philip M Robson; Nicolas Karakatsanis; Venkatesh Mani; Maria Padilla; Marc Miller; Anuradha Lala; Javier Sanz; Jagat Narula; Valentin Fuster; Johanna Contreras; Jason C Kovacic; Zahi A Fayad Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-06-29
Authors: D L Bailey; G Antoch; P Bartenstein; H Barthel; A J Beer; S Bisdas; D A Bluemke; R Boellaard; C D Claussen; C Franzius; M Hacker; H Hricak; C la Fougère; B Gückel; S G Nekolla; B J Pichler; S Purz; H H Quick; O Sabri; B Sattler; J Schäfer; H Schmidt; J van den Hoff; S Voss; W Weber; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; H Barthel; A J Beer; R Botnar; R Gillies; V Goh; M Gotthardt; R J Hicks; R Lanzenberger; C la Fougere; M Lentschig; S G Nekolla; T Niederdraenk; K Nikolaou; J Nuyts; D Olego; K Åhlström Riklund; A Signore; M Schäfers; V Sossi; M Suminski; P Veit-Haibach; L Umutlu; M Wissmeyer; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Dale L Bailey; Henryk Barthel; Thomas Beyer; Ronald Boellaard; Brigitte Gückel; Dirk Hellwig; Hans Herzog; Bernd J Pichler; Harald H Quick; Osama Sabri; Klaus Scheffler; Heinz P Schlemmer; Nina F Schwenzer; Hans F Wehrl Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.488