Top

Molecular Imaging and Biology

Published in:

01-04-2020 | Computed Tomography | Research Article

Performance Evaluation of a Newly Developed MR-Compatible Mobile PET Scanner with Two Detector Layouts

Authors: Masao Watanabe, Yuji Nakamoto, Ryusuke Nakamoto, Takayoshi Ishimori, Tsuneo Saga, Kaori Togashi

Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

Purpose

A mobile positron emission tomography (PET) scanner called flexible PET (fxPET), designed to fit existing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) system, has been developed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the image quality, lesion detection rate, and quantitative values of fxPET compared with conventional bismuth germanium oxide (BGO)-based PET/CT without time-of-flight capability.

Procedures

Fifty-nine patients underwent whole-body (WB) PET/CT scans approximately 1 h after injection of 2-deoxy-2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-D-glucose, followed by the fxPET scans with detectors located above and below the patients (layout A) and with detectors closer to the patients (layout B). Two readers assessed the image quality using a 4-point grade for each layout and reached a consensus. We evaluated the differences and/or correlations between fxPET and WB PET/CT, including the lesion detection rates, the standardized uptake value (SUV), the metabolic tumor volume (MTV), the total lesion glycolysis (TLG), the tumor-to-normal liver ratio (TLR), and the background liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Results

The image quality of layout B was better than layout A (p < 0.0001). Of 184 lesions, the detection rate of layout B was significantly higher than WB PET/CT (p = 0.041), while the detection rate of layout A was comparable to WB PET/CT. The SUVmax/mean/peak were larger, and the MTVs were smaller in fxPET than WB PET/CT, especially in the lesions smaller than 2 cm (p < 0.01). The SUVmax/mean/peak, the MTVs and the TLGs of fxPET had significant positive correlations with WB PET/CT (p < 0.0001). The TLRs were significantly larger (p < 0.0001), but the background SNRs were significantly lower in fxPET than WB PET/CT (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The fxPET system yielded reasonable image quality and quantitative accuracy. Bringing the detectors closer to the patient yielded improved results.

Available only for authorised users

Nensa F, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Wetter A (2014) Clinical applications of PET/MRI: current status and future perspectives. Diagn Interv Radiol 20:438–447CrossRef

Nakamoto R, Nakamoto Y, Ishimori T, Fushimi Y, Kido A, Togashi K (2018) Comparison of PET/CT with sequential PET/MRI using an MRI-compatible mobile PET system. J Nucl Med 59:846–851CrossRef

Kobayashi T, Kitamura K (2012) Design considerations for a partial-ring, multi-modal compatible whole-body TOF PET scanner: flexible PET. in Conf Rec IEEE NSS/MIC 2807–2812

Nakazawa M, Ohi J, Furumiya T, et al. (2012) PET data acquisition (DAQ) system having scalability for the number of detector. in Conf Rec IEEE NSS/MIC 2475–2478

Furuta M, Satoh M, Ohi J, et al. (2013) Development of a proof of concept system for multi-modal compatible PET: flexible PET. in Conf. Rec. IEEE NSS/MIC 1-4

Yamakawa Y, Kobayashi T, Furuta M, et al. (2014) Development of a dual-head mobile DOI-TOF PET system having multi-modality compatibility. in Conf. Rec. IEEE NSS/MIC 1-3

Tanaka E, Kudo H (2010) Optimal relaxation parameters of DRAMA (dynamic RAMLA) aiming at one pass image reconstruction for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 55:2917–2939CrossRef

Watson CC (2007) Extension of single scatter simulation to scatter correlation of time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans on Nucl Sci 54:1679–1686CrossRef

Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Furst S, Martinez-Moller A, Nekolla SG, Ziegler S, Ganter C, Rummeny EJ, Schwaiger M (2012) First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med 53:845–855CrossRef

10.

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SCrossRef

11.

Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, Verzijlbergen FJ, Barrington SF, Pike LC, Weber WA, Stroobants S, Delbeke D, Donohoe KJ, Holbrook S, Graham MM, Testanera G, Hoekstra OS, Zijlstra J, Visser E, Hoekstra CJ, Pruim J, Willemsen A, Arends B, Kotzerke J, Bockisch A, Beyer T, Chiti A, Krause BJ, European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354CrossRef

12.

Murphy JD, Chisholm KM, Daly ME, Wiegner EA, Truong D, Iagaru A, Maxim PG, Loo BW Jr, Graves EE, Kaplan MJ, Kong C, le QT (2011) Correlation between metabolic tumor volume and pathologic tumor volume in squamous cell carcinoma of oral cavity. Radiother Oncol 101:356–361CrossRef

13.

Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, Shankar L, Therasse P, Gwyther S, Eisenhauer EA (2009) Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer 45:261–267CrossRef

14.

Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932–945CrossRef

15.

Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR et al (2015) Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol 84:1873–1878CrossRef

16.

Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM et al (2016) Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 26:576–584CrossRef

17.

van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen J, Lubberink M, Willemsen ATM, Visser EP (2017) Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(Suppl 1):4–16PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Surti S, Karp JS (2016) Advances in time-of-flight PET. Phys Med 32:12–22CrossRef

19.

Conti M (2011) Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1147–1157CrossRef

20.

Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW (2009) Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med 50:1315–1323CrossRef

21.

Laffon E, Barret O, Marthan R, Ducassou D (2009) Is the physical decay correction of the ¹⁸F-FDG input function in dynamic PET imaging justified? J Nucl Med Technol 37:111–113CrossRef

22.

Schmall JP, Karp JS, Werner M, Surti S (2016) Parallax error in long-axial field-of-view PET scanners-a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 61:5443–5455CrossRef

23.

Nakazawa M, Ohi J, Tonami H, et al. (2010) Development of a prototype DOI-TOF-PET scanner. in Conf. Rec. IEEE NSS/MIC 2077-2080

24.

Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K, Ono S, Tashiro M, Yamaguchi K, Akaizawa T, Yamada K, Fukuda H (2001) Advantage of delayed whole-body FDG-PET imaging for tumour detection. Eur J Nucl Med 28:696–703CrossRef

25.

Murray I, Kalemis A, Glennon J, Hasan S, Quraishi S, Beyer T, Avril N (2010) Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1643–1653CrossRef

26.

Laffon E, Adhoute X, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2011) Is liver SUV stable over time in ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging? J Nucl Med Technol 39:258–263CrossRef

27.

Al-Faham Z, Jolepalem P, Rydberg J et al (2016) Optimizing 18F-FDG uptake time before imaging improves the accuracy of PET/CT in liver lesions. J Nucl Med Technol 44:70–72CrossRef

28.

Surti S, Karp JS (2008) Design considerations for a limited angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner. Phys Med Biol 53:2911–2921CrossRef

Title: Performance Evaluation of a Newly Developed MR-Compatible Mobile PET Scanner with Two Detector Layouts
Authors: Masao Watanabe
Yuji Nakamoto
Ryusuke Nakamoto
Takayoshi Ishimori
Tsuneo Saga
Kaori Togashi
Publication date: 01-04-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1536-1632
Electronic ISSN: 1860-2002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-019-01384-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Performance Evaluation of a Newly Developed MR-Compatible Mobile PET Scanner with Two Detector Layouts

Abstract

Purpose

Procedures

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Procedures

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

GABAA Receptors in the Mongolian Gerbil: a PET Study Using [18F]Flumazenil to Determine Receptor Binding in Young and Old Animals

Distribution of Brown Adipose Tissue Radiodensity in Young Adults: Implications for Cold [18F]FDG-PET/CT Analyses

Clinical Applications for Radiotracer Imaging of Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease and Critical Limb Ischemia

Evaluating the Role of Amide Proton Transfer (APT)–Weighted Contrast, Optimized for Normalization and Region of Interest Selection, in Differentiation of Neoplastic and Infective Mass Lesions on 3T MRI

Transforming an Academic Radiochemistry Facility for Positron Emission Tomography Drug cGMP Compliance

Transcranial Photoacoustic Detection of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Following Focused Ultrasound-Mediated Nanoparticle Delivery