Tonke L de Jong1, Daniëlle Koopman2, Jorn A van Dalen3, Aline Tegelaar2, Joris D van Dijk2, Henk Stevens2, Pieter L Jager2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025AB, Zwolle, Netherlands. t.l.de.jong@isala.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025AB, Zwolle, Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Digital PET systems (dPET) improve lesion detectability as compared to PET systems with conventional photomultiplier tubes (cPET). We prospectively studied the performance of high-resolution digital PET scans in patients with cancer, as compared with high- and standard-resolution conventional PET scans, taking the acquisition order into account. METHODS: We included 212 patients with cancer, who were referred for disease staging or restaging. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT on a dPET scanner and on a cPET scanner in a randomized order. The scans were acquired immediately after each other. Three image reconstructions were generated: 1) standard-resolution (4 × 4 × 4 mm3 voxels) cPET, 2) high-resolution (2 × 2 × 2 mm3 voxels) cPET, and 3) high-resolution dPET. Two experienced PET readers visually assessed the three reconstructions side-by-side and ranked them according to scan preference, in an independent and blinded fashion. RESULTS: On high-resolution dPET, the PET readers detected more lesions or they had a higher diagnostic confidence than on high- and standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). High-resolution dPET was preferred in 90% of the cases, as compared to 44% for high-resolution cPET and 1% for standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). However, for the subgroup of patients where dPET was made first (n = 103, 61 ± 10 min after FDG administration) and cPET was made second (93 ± 15 min after FDG administration), no significant difference in preference was found between the high-resolution cPET and dPET reconstructions (p = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: DPET scanners in combination with high-resolution reconstructions clinically outperform cPET scanners with both high- and standard-resolution reconstructions as the PET readers identified more FDG-avid lesions, their diagnostic confidence was increased, and they visually preferred dPET. However, when dPET was made first, high-resolution dPET and high-resolution cPET showed similar performance, indicating the positive effect of a prolonged FDG uptake time. Therefore, high-resolution cPET in combination with a prolonged FDG uptake time can be considered as an alternative.
PURPOSE: Digital PET systems (dPET) improve lesion detectability as compared to PET systems with conventional photomultiplier tubes (cPET). We prospectively studied the performance of high-resolution digital PET scans in patients with cancer, as compared with high- and standard-resolution conventional PET scans, taking the acquisition order into account. METHODS: We included 212 patients with cancer, who were referred for disease staging or restaging. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT on a dPET scanner and on a cPET scanner in a randomized order. The scans were acquired immediately after each other. Three image reconstructions were generated: 1) standard-resolution (4 × 4 × 4 mm3 voxels) cPET, 2) high-resolution (2 × 2 × 2 mm3 voxels) cPET, and 3) high-resolution dPET. Two experienced PET readers visually assessed the three reconstructions side-by-side and ranked them according to scan preference, in an independent and blinded fashion. RESULTS: On high-resolution dPET, the PET readers detected more lesions or they had a higher diagnostic confidence than on high- and standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). High-resolution dPET was preferred in 90% of the cases, as compared to 44% for high-resolution cPET and 1% for standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). However, for the subgroup of patients where dPET was made first (n = 103, 61 ± 10 min after FDG administration) and cPET was made second (93 ± 15 min after FDG administration), no significant difference in preference was found between the high-resolution cPET and dPET reconstructions (p = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: DPET scanners in combination with high-resolution reconstructions clinically outperform cPET scanners with both high- and standard-resolution reconstructions as the PET readers identified more FDG-avid lesions, their diagnostic confidence was increased, and they visually preferred dPET. However, when dPET was made first, high-resolution dPET and high-resolution cPET showed similar performance, indicating the positive effect of a prolonged FDG uptake time. Therefore, high-resolution cPET in combination with a prolonged FDG uptake time can be considered as an alternative.