Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-06-2011 | Review Article

Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution

Author: Maurizio Conti

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 6/2011

Abstract

TOF PET is characterized by a better trade-off between contrast and noise in the image. This property is enhanced in more challenging operating conditions, allowing for example shorter examinations or low counts, successful scanning of larger patients, low uptake, visualization of smaller lesions, and incomplete data sampling. In this paper, the correlation between the time resolution of a TOF PET scanner and the improvement in signal-to-noise in the image is introduced and discussed. A set of performance advantages is presented which include better image quality, shorter scan times, lower dose, higher spatial resolution, lower sensitivity to inconsistent data, and the opportunity for new architectures with missing angles. The recent scientific literature that reports the first experimental evidence of such advantages in oncology clinical data is reviewed. Finally, the directions for possible improvement of the time resolution of the present generation of TOF PET scanners are discussed.

Lewellen TK. Time-of-flight PET. Semin Nucl Med. 1998;28:268–75.PubMedCrossRef

Moses WW. Time of flight in PET revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1325–30.CrossRef

Muehllehner G, Karp JS. Positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R117–37.PubMedCrossRef

Conti M. State of the art and challenges of time-of-flight PET. Phys Med. 2009;25:1–11.PubMedCrossRef

Gariod R, Allemand R, Carmoreche E, et al. The LETI positron tomograph architecture and time of flight improvements. Proceeding of the Workshop on Time-of-flight tomography, Washington University. IEEE Publication; 1982. p. 25–29.

Yamamoto M, Ficke DC, Ter-Pogossian MM. Experimental assessment of the gain achieved by the utilization of time-of-flight information in a positron emission tomograph (Super PETT I). IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;1:187–92.PubMedCrossRef

Wong WH, Mullani NA, Philippe EA, Hartz RK, Bristow D, Yerian K, et al. Performance characteristics of the University of Texas TOFPET-I PET camera. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:46–7.

Lewellen TK, Bice AN, Harrison RL, Pencke MD, Link JM. Performance measurements of the SP3000/UW time-of-flight positron emission tomograph. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1988;35:665–9.CrossRef

Ishii K, Orihara H, Matsuzawa T, Binkley DM, Nutt R. High resolution time-of-flight positron emission tomograph. Rev Sci Instrum. 1990;61:3755–62.CrossRef

10.

Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Gremillion T, Hayden C, et al. Performance investigation of a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2008. IEEE. p. 3738–3743.

11.

Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471–80.PubMed

12.

Wilson JM and Turkington TG. TOF-PET small-lesion image quality measured over a range of phantom sizes. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2009. IEEE. p. 3710–3714.

13.

Daube-Witherspoon ME, Surti S, Perkins A, Kyba CCM, Wiener R, Werner ME, et al. The imaging performance of a LaBr3-based PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:45–64.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Conti M. Effect of random reduction on signal-to-noise-ratio in TOF PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53:1188–93.CrossRef

15.

Budinger TF. Instrumentation trends in nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med. 1977;7:285–97.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Budinger TF. Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:73–8.PubMed

17.

Mullani NA, Markham J, Ter-Pogossian MM. Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:1095–97.PubMed

18.

Wong WH, Mullani NA, Philippe EA, Hartz RK, Gould KL. Image improvement and design optimization of the time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:52–60.PubMed

19.

Tomitani T. Image reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time-of-flight assisted positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;28:4582–88.CrossRef

20.

Snyder DL, Thomas LJ, Ter-Pogossian MM. A mathematical model for positron emission tomography systems having time-of-flight measurements. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1981;28:3575–83.CrossRef

21.

Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating count rates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;37:783–8.CrossRef

22.

Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey ME, Chen M, Kehren F, Michel C, et al. First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:4507–26.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Huang B, Law MWM, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;251:166–74.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Roberts F, Gunawardana DH, Pathmaraj K, Wallace A, Mi T, Berlangieri SU, et al. Radiation dose to PET technologists and strategies to lower occupational exposure. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;33:44–7.PubMed

25.

Murray I, Kalemis A, Glennon J, Hasan S, Quraishi S, Beyer T, et al. Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1643–53.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Lhommel R, van Elmbt L, Goffette P, van den Eynde M, Jamar F, Pauwels S, et al. Feasibility of 90Y TOF PET-based dosimetry in liver metastasis therapy using SIR-Spheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1654–62.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Surti S, Karp JS. Design considerations for a limited-angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2009;53:2911–21.CrossRef

28.

Crespo P, Shakirin G, Fiedler F, Enghardt W, Wagner A. Direct time-of-flight for quantitative, real-time in-beam PET: a concept and feasibility study. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:6795–811.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Wang W, Hu Z, Gualtieri EE, Parma MJ, Walsh ES, Sebok D, et al. Systematic and distributed time-of-flight list mode PET reconstruction. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2006. IEEE. p. 1715–1722.

30.

Werner ME, Surti S, Karp JS. Implementation and evaluation of a 3D PET single scatter simulation with TOF modeling. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2006. IEEE. p. 1768–1773.

31.

Turkington TG, Wilson JM. Attenuation artifacts and time-of-flight PET. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2009. IEEE. p. 2997–2999.

32.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2001: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.

33.

Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–70.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1315–23.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, Hubner KF, Barker DW, Casey ME, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight (TOF) information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237–45.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Moses WW, Ullisch M. Factors influencing timing resolution in a commercial LSO PET camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53:78–85.CrossRef

37.

Conti M, Eriksson L, Rothfuss H, Melcher C. Comparing fast scintillators with TOF PET potentiality. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2009;56:926–33.CrossRef

38.

Kyba CCM, Glodo J, van Loef EVD, Karp JS, Shah KS. Energy and time response of six prototype scintillators for TOF-PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2008;55:1404–8.CrossRef

39.

Lewellen TK. Recent development in PET detector technology. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:R287–317.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Renker D. New trends of photodetectors. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2007;571:1–6.CrossRef

41.

Schaart DR, Seifert S, Vinke R, van Dam HT, Dendooven P, Loehner H, et al. LaBr3:Ce and SiPMs for time-of-flight PET: achieving 100 ps coincidence resolving time. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:N179–89.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Degenhardt C, Prescher G, Frach T, Thon A, de Gruyter R, Schmitz A, et al. The digital silicon photomultiplier – A novel sensor for the detection of scintillation light. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2009. IEEE. p. 2383–2386.

Title: Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution
Author: Maurizio Conti
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Evolving role of molecular imaging with PET in detecting and characterizing heterogeneity of cancer tissue at the primary and metastatic sites, a plausible explanation for failed attempts to cure malignant disorders

Whole-body hybrid PET/MRI: ready for clinical use?

Iterative reconstruction or filtered backprojection for semi-quantitative assessment of dopamine D2 receptor SPECT studies?

Vascular time-activity variation in patients undergoing 123I-MIBG myocardial scintigraphy: implications for quantification of cardiac and mediastinal uptake

Lingual thyroid imaging with 123I SPECT/CT

Relationship between infarct size and severity measured by gated SPECT and long-term left ventricular remodelling after acute myocardial infarction