Pengcheng Hu1,2,3, Yiqiu Zhang1,2,3, Haojun Yu1,2,3, Shuguang Chen1,2,3, Hui Tan1,2,3, Chi Qi1,2,3, Yun Dong4, Ying Wang4, Zilin Deng4, Hongcheng Shi5,6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. 3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. 4. United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 6. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 7. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine a faster PET acquisition protocol for a total-body PET/CT scanner by assessing the image quality that is equivalent to a conventional digital PET/CT scanner from both a phantom and a clinical perspective. METHODS: A phantom study using a NEMA/IEC NU-2 body phantom was first performed in both a total-body PET/CT (uEXPLORER) and a routine digital PET/CT (uMI 780), with a hot sphere to background activity concentration ratio of 4:1. The contrast recovery coefficient (CRC), background variability (BV), and recovery coefficient (RC: RCmax and RCmean) were assessed in the uEXPLORER with different scanning durations and reconstruction protocols, which were compared to those acquired from the uMI 780 with clinical acquisition settings. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was calculated and used as a threshold reference to determine the optimized scanning duration and reconstruction protocol for the uEXPLORER. The obtained protocol from the phantom study was subsequently tested and validated in 30 oncology patients. Images acquired from the uMI 780 with 2-3 min per bed position were referred as G780 and served as the reference for comparison. All PET raw data from the uEXPLORER were reconstructed using the data-cutting technique to simulate a 30-s, 45-s, or 60-s acquisition duration, respectively. The iterations were 2 and 3 for the uEXPLORER, referred as G30s_3i, G45s_2i, G45s_3i, G60s_2i, and G60s_3i, respectively. A 5-point Likert scale was used in the qualitative analysis to assess the image quality. The image quality was also evaluated by the liver COV, the lesion target-to-background ratio (TBR), and the lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: In the phantom study, CRC, BV, RCmax, and RCmean in the uEXPLORER with different scanning durations and reconstruction iterations were compared with those in the uMI 780 with clinical settings. A minor fluctuation was found among different scanning durations. COV of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was 11.6%, and a protocol with a 30-45-s scanning duration and 2 or 3 iterations for the uEXPLORER was found to provide an equivalent image quality as the uMI 780. An almost perfect agreement was shown with a kappa value of 0.875. The qualitative score of the G30s_3i in the uEXPLORER was inferior to the G780 reference (p = 0.001); however, the scores of other groups in the uEXPLORER with a 45-s and above acquisition time were higher than the G780 in the uMI 780. In quantitative analysis, the delay time between the two scans in the two orders was not significantly different. There was no significant difference of the liver COV between the G780 and G30s_3i (p = 0.162). A total of 33 lesions were analyzed in the clinical patient study. There was no significant difference in lesion TBR between the reference G780 and the G45s_2i obtained from the uEXPLORER (p = 0.072), while the latter showed a higher lesion SNR value compared to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a fast PET protocol with a 30-45-s acquisition time in the total-body uEXPLORER PET/CT can provide an equivalent image quality as the conventional digital uMI 780 PET/CT with longer clinical acquisition settings.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine a faster PET acquisition protocol for a total-body PET/CT scanner by assessing the image quality that is equivalent to a conventional digital PET/CT scanner from both a phantom and a clinical perspective. METHODS: A phantom study using a NEMA/IEC NU-2 body phantom was first performed in both a total-body PET/CT (uEXPLORER) and a routine digital PET/CT (uMI 780), with a hot sphere to background activity concentration ratio of 4:1. The contrast recovery coefficient (CRC), background variability (BV), and recovery coefficient (RC: RCmax and RCmean) were assessed in the uEXPLORER with different scanning durations and reconstruction protocols, which were compared to those acquired from the uMI 780 with clinical acquisition settings. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was calculated and used as a threshold reference to determine the optimized scanning duration and reconstruction protocol for the uEXPLORER. The obtained protocol from the phantom study was subsequently tested and validated in 30 oncology patients. Images acquired from the uMI 780 with 2-3 min per bed position were referred as G780 and served as the reference for comparison. All PET raw data from the uEXPLORER were reconstructed using the data-cutting technique to simulate a 30-s, 45-s, or 60-s acquisition duration, respectively. The iterations were 2 and 3 for the uEXPLORER, referred as G30s_3i, G45s_2i, G45s_3i, G60s_2i, and G60s_3i, respectively. A 5-point Likert scale was used in the qualitative analysis to assess the image quality. The image quality was also evaluated by the liver COV, the lesion target-to-background ratio (TBR), and the lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: In the phantom study, CRC, BV, RCmax, and RCmean in the uEXPLORER with different scanning durations and reconstruction iterations were compared with those in the uMI 780 with clinical settings. A minor fluctuation was found among different scanning durations. COV of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was 11.6%, and a protocol with a 30-45-s scanning duration and 2 or 3 iterations for the uEXPLORER was found to provide an equivalent image quality as the uMI 780. An almost perfect agreement was shown with a kappa value of 0.875. The qualitative score of the G30s_3i in the uEXPLORER was inferior to the G780 reference (p = 0.001); however, the scores of other groups in the uEXPLORER with a 45-s and above acquisition time were higher than the G780 in the uMI 780. In quantitative analysis, the delay time between the two scans in the two orders was not significantly different. There was no significant difference of the liver COV between the G780 and G30s_3i (p = 0.162). A total of 33 lesions were analyzed in the clinical patient study. There was no significant difference in lesion TBR between the reference G780 and the G45s_2i obtained from the uEXPLORER (p = 0.072), while the latter showed a higher lesion SNR value compared to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a fast PET protocol with a 30-45-s acquisition time in the total-body uEXPLORER PET/CT can provide an equivalent image quality as the conventional digital uMI 780 PET/CT with longer clinical acquisition settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital PET/CT; Fast acquisition; Image quality; Protocol optimization; Total-body PET/CT
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: 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