| Literature DB >> 34910233 |
John Dickson1, Uta Eberlein2, Michael Lassmann3.
Abstract
AIM: Recent advancements in PET technology have brought with it significant improvements in PET performance and image quality. In particular, the extension of the axial field of view of PET systems, and the introduction of semiconductor technology into the PET detector, initially for PET/MR, and more recently available long-field-of-view PET/CT systems (≥ 25 cm) have brought a step change improvement in the sensitivity of PET scanners. Given the requirement to limit paediatric doses, this increase in sensitivity is extremely welcome for the imaging of children and young people. This is even more relevant with PET/MR, where the lack of CT exposures brings further dose reduction benefits to this population. In this short article, we give some details around the benefits around new PET technology including PET/MR and its implications on the EANM paediatric dosage card. MATERIAL AND METHODS : Reflecting on EANM adult guidance on injected activities, and making reference to bed overlap and the concept of MBq.min bed-1 kg-1, we use published data on image quality from PET/MR systems to update the paediatric dosage card for PET/MR and extended axial field of view (≥ 25 cm) PET/CT systems. However, this communication does not cover the expansion of paediatric dosing for the half-body and total-body scanners that have recently come to market.Entities:
Keywords: EANM dosage card; PET; PET/MR systems
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34910233 PMCID: PMC9016049 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05635-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 10.057
A selection of PET/CT scanners with referenced performance characteristics. (BGO bismuth germanate, LSO lutetium-oxyorthosilicate, LBS lutetium based scintillator, PMT photomultiplier tube, APD avalanche photodiode, SiPM silicon photomultiplier, ToF time of flight
| 15.7 | 8.9* | BGO | PMT | - | [ | |
| 18 | 6.6 | LYSO | PMT | 585 | [ | |
| 15.7 | 7.6 | LBS | PMT | 544 | [ | |
| 21.8 | 9.7 | LSO | PMT | 530 | [ | |
| 18 | 7.4 | LYSO | PMT | 502 | [ | |
| 25.8 | 15 | LSO | APD | - | [ | |
| 25 | 23.3 | LBS | SiPM | < 400 | [ | |
| 32 | 15.9 | LYSO | SiPM | 535 | [ | |
| 16.4 | 5.2 | LYSO | SiPM | 310 | [ | |
| 20 | 13.5 | LBS | SiPM | 380 | [ | |
| 19.7 | 9.1 | LSO | SiPM | 215 | [ | |
| 25.6 | 16 | LSO | SiPM | 215 | [ | |
| 25 | 20.7 | LBS | SiPM | 380 | [ | |
*Performance in 3D acquisition mode.
Recommended administered activities (dosage card vs. weight-based) and effective dose values taken from ICRP128 [40], for a 3 min per bed position acquisition. For comparison, the values of the EANM dosage card [7] and the NA consensus guideline are provided [43]
| Age | Newborn | 1 year | 5 years | 10 years | 15 years | Adult |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | 3 | 10 | 19 | 32 | 57 | 68 |
| Administered activity (MBq) | 11 | 29 | 50* | 78 | 124* | 149 |
| Effective dose (mSv) | NA | 2.75 | 2.80 | 2.88 | 2.98 | 2.84 |
| 2.5 MBq/kg administered activity (MBq) | 7.5 | 25 | 48 | 80 | 138 | 170 |
| EANM dosage card 3D mode [ | 14 | 38 | 65 | 102 | 163 | 200 |
| EANM dosage card 2D mode [ | 26 | 70 | 120 | 189 | 302 | 363 |
| North American consensus guidelines (5.2 MBq/kg) [ | 26 | 52 | 98 | 166 | 295 | 352 |
*Interpolated values.