Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Original research

Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain ¹⁸F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera

Authors: Julien Salvadori, Laetitia Imbert, Mathieu Perrin, Gilles Karcher, Zohra Lamiral, Pierre-Yves Marie, Antoine Verger

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

The quality of phantom images was previously shown to be higher on digital (Vereos Philips®) compared to analog PET (Ingenuity Philips®) cameras. This study aimed to determine the extent to which this difference still remains significant on normal brain ¹⁸F-FDG PET images.

Methods

Relative noise and contrast as well as border sharpness (a spatial resolution index) of central (striata) and peripheral (occiput) gray-matter structures were compared between 10 sets of normal brain ¹⁸F-FDG PET images recorded and reconstructed on digital and analog last-generation PET cameras, together with a subjective visual analysis of image quality provided by experienced physicians.

Results

Compared with analog PET, digital PET provided marked improvements in image quality parameters. The median relative noise was decreased (− 22%), while gray/white-matter contrast was increased (+ 27%/+ 41% for central/peripheral gray-matter structures), with these results being consistent with visual analysis. In addition, a clear enhancement in image sharpness was further documented for digital PET owing to the possible use of a 1-mm³ voxel size (+ 24%/+ 21%).

Conclusions

On normal brain ¹⁸F-FDG images and compared with a last-generation analog PET, the fully digital PET camera offers marked improvements in image noise and contrast, as well as significant potential for further enhancing spatial resolution.

Available only for authorised users

Frach T, Prescher G, Degenhardt C, de Gruyter R, Schmitz A, Ballizany R. The digital silicon photomultiplier — principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance. In: IEEE Nuclear science symposium conference record (NSS/MIC); 2009. p. 1959–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2009.5402143.CrossRef

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

NationalElectricalManufacturersAssociation. NEMA NU-2 2012: performance measurement of positron emission tomography. 2013.

Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Beyer T, Ignasi C. Performance evaluation of the Philips Vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2–2012 standards. J Nucl Med. 2018;60:561–7.CrossRef

Zhang J, Maniawski P, Knopp MV. Performance evaluation of the next generation solid-state digital photon counting PET/CT system. Eur J Nucl Med Res. 2018;8:97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-018-0448-7.CrossRef

Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1378–85. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.148338.CrossRefPubMed

López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Fuentes-Ocampo F, Camacho V, Fernández A, Ruiz A. Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-4260.

Fuentes-Ocampo F, López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Paillahueque G, Camacho V, Duch J, et al. Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions. Eur J Nucl Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4256-0.

Henriksen OM, Marner L, Law I. Clinical PET/MR imaging in dementia and neuro-oncology. PET Clin. 2016;11:441–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2016.05.003.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Salvadori J, Perrin M, Marie PY, Laetitia I, Verger A. High-resolution brain ¹⁸F-FDG images provided by fully digital PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44:301–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002483.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Richardson WH. Bayesian-based iterative method of image restoration. JOSA. 1972;62:55–9. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.62.000055.CrossRef

12.

Lucy LB. An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions. Astron J. 1974;79:745–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/111605.CrossRef

13.

Peli E. Contrast in complex images. JOSA. 1990;7:2032–40. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.7.002032.CrossRef

14.

Imbert L, Poussier S, Franken PR, Songy B, Verger A, Morel O, et al. Compared performance of high-sensitivity cameras dedicated to myocardial perfusion SPECT: a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human images. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1897–903. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.107417.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Salvadori J, Verger A, Chevalier E, Perrin M, Tissot H, Claudin M, et al. Head-to-head comparisons of the PET performance measured using the NEMA standards between digital and analogic last-generation cameras. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(Suppl 1):574. Abstract.

16.

Bahloul A, Perrin M, Amlal S, Marie PY, Verger A. Central nervous system myelomatosis delineated by high-resolution brain images from fully digital ¹⁸F-FDG PET. Clin Nucl Med. 43:372–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002243.

17.

Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. Eur J Nucl Med Phys. 2016;3:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3.CrossRef

18.

Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med. 2011;38:1147–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y.CrossRef

Title: Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain 18F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera
Authors: Julien Salvadori
Laetitia Imbert
Mathieu Perrin
Gilles Karcher
Zohra Lamiral
Pierre-Yves Marie
Antoine Verger
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain ¹⁸F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Biodistribution and post-therapy dosimetric analysis of [177Lu]Lu-DOTAZOL in patients with osteoblastic metastases: first results

Photonuclear production, chemistry, and in vitro evaluation of the theranostic radionuclide 47Sc

Correction to: Comparison of three-parameter kinetic model analysis to standard Patlak’s analysis in 18F-FDG PET imaging of lung cancer patients

Low septal to lateral wall 18F-FDG ratio is highly associated with mechanical dyssynchrony in non-ischemic CRT candidates

Direct comparison of [11C] choline and [18F] FET PET to detect glioma infiltration: a diagnostic accuracy study in eight patients

Validation of [125I]CPCR4.3 as an investigative tool for the sensitive and specific detection of hCXCR4 and mCXCR4 expression in vitro and in vivo