BACKGROUND: The aim of this phantom study was to optimise the [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT examination in terms of scan time duration and image reconstruction parameters, in combination with PSF and TOF modelling, in a digital Biograph Vision PET/CT scanner. METHODS: Three types of phantoms were used: (a) soft-tissue tumour phantom consisting of six spheres mounted in a torso phantom, (b) bone-lung tumour phantom, and (c) resolution phantom. Phantom inserts were filled with activity concentrations (ACs) that clinical data. Phantom data were acquired in list-mode at one bed position. Images with emission data ranging from 30 to 210 s in 30-s increments were reconstructed from a reference image acquired with 3.5-min emission. Iterative image reconstruction (OSEM), point-spread-function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) options were applied using different iterations, Gaussian filters, and voxel sizes. The criteria for image quality was lesion detectability and lesion quantification, evaluated as contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and percentage maximum AC (peak AC), respectively. A threshold value of CNR above 8 6 and percentage maximum AC (peak AC) deviation range of ±20% of the reference image, were considered acceptable. The proposed single-bed scan time reduction was projected to a whole-body examination (patient validation scan) using the continuous-bed-motion mode. RESULTS: Sphere and background ACs of 20 kBq/mL and 1 kBq/mL were selected, respectively. The optimised single-bed scan time was approximately 60 s using OSEM-TOF or OSEM-TOF+PSF (4 iterations, 4.0-mm Gaussian filter, and almost isotropic voxel size of 3.0-mm side length), resulting in a PET spatial resolution of 6.3 mm. In the patient validation, the maximum percentage difference between standard and optimized protocol (15 vs 5 min) was below 19%. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction of single-bed and whole-body scan time for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared to current clinically recommended acquisition protocols is postulated Clinical studies are warranted to validate the applicability of this protocol.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this phantom study was to optimise the [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT examination in terms of scan time duration and image reconstruction parameters, in combination with PSF and TOF modelling, in a digital Biograph Vision PET/CT scanner. METHODS: Three types of phantoms were used: (a) soft-tissue tumour phantom consisting of six spheres mounted in a torso phantom, (b) bone-lung tumour phantom, and (c) resolution phantom. Phantom inserts were filled with activity concentrations (ACs) that clinical data. Phantom data were acquired in list-mode at one bed position. Images with emission data ranging from 30 to 210 s in 30-s increments were reconstructed from a reference image acquired with 3.5-min emission. Iterative image reconstruction (OSEM), point-spread-function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) options were applied using different iterations, Gaussian filters, and voxel sizes. The criteria for image quality was lesion detectability and lesion quantification, evaluated as contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and percentage maximum AC (peak AC), respectively. A threshold value of CNR above 8 6 and percentage maximum AC (peak AC) deviation range of ±20% of the reference image, were considered acceptable. The proposed single-bed scan time reduction was projected to a whole-body examination (patient validation scan) using the continuous-bed-motion mode. RESULTS: Sphere and background ACs of 20 kBq/mL and 1 kBq/mL were selected, respectively. The optimised single-bed scan time was approximately 60 s using OSEM-TOF or OSEM-TOF+PSF (4 iterations, 4.0-mm Gaussian filter, and almost isotropic voxel size of 3.0-mm side length), resulting in a PET spatial resolution of 6.3 mm. In the patient validation, the maximum percentage difference between standard and optimized protocol (15 vs 5 min) was below 19%. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction of single-bed and whole-body scan time for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared to current clinically recommended acquisition protocols is postulated Clinical studies are warranted to validate the applicability of this protocol.
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