Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology and Hepatology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s
Webinar

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Growing numbers of young people are using e-cigarettes, despite warnings of respiratory effects and addiction. How can doctors tackle the epidemic, and what health effects should you prepare to manage in your clinics?

Watch the on-demand webinar
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in:

Open Access 07-12-2024 | Original Article

Usefulness of a new anthropomorphic phantom simulating the chest and abdomen regions in PET tests

Authors: Hiroaki Sagara, Kazumasa Inoue, Chikara Mano, Hironori Kajiwara, Yuichi Nagai, Hirofumi Fujii, Anri Inaki

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 3/2025

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the clinical utility of a new anthropomorphic phantom that reproduces the chest and abdomen better than the conventional National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) body phantom, count rates and image quality of PET images obtained from patients were evaluated.

Methods

Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to include radioactivity in the lung, liver, kidney, and background regions. Two NEMA body phantoms were used for chest and abdominal assessments. The cross calibration factor (CCF) cylinder phantom was also used to reproduce the distribution of radioactivity outside the field of view, simulating the patient brain. Four types of phantoms were used in the PET imaging experiment, and for each phantom, the prompt coincidence count rates, random coincidence count rates, true + scatter coincidence count rates, and single photon count rates were measured. Then, these count rates were compared with count rates from actual clinical data. PET image quality assessment was done using the parameters, noise equivalent count patient (NECpatient), noise equivalent count density (NECdensity), and liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Results

Random coincidence count rates showed that the data obtained from each phantom were in good agreement with the clinical data. True + scatter coincidence count rates had better agreement with clinical data when measured for anthropomorphic phantoms than for the NEMA body phantoms. Furthermore, when the CCF Cylinder phantom simulating the brain was placed outside the imaging field of view, the results were closer to the clinical data. PET image quality was 1.4% higher for NECpatient obtained from anthropomorphic phantoms compared to the mean obtained from clinical data. NECdensity was 15.0% lower than the mean value obtained from clinical data. Liver SNR was 14.8% higher in PET images reconstructed using the 3D-ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) method. It was 10.0% lower in PET images reconstructed with the image reconstruction method Q.Clear (GE Healthcare) using the Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) method.

Conclusion

The new anthropomorphic phantom was more consistent with the count rates obtained from clinical data than the conventional NEMA body phantoms were and it was able to better simulate the distribution of radioactivity concentrations in the patients by reproducing the distribution of radioactivity concentrations outside the field of view.
Literature
1.
Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231(2):305–32.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Lodge MA, Wahl RL. Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology. 2016;280(2):576–84.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Meikle SR, Sossi V, Roncali E, Cherry SR, Banati R, Mankoff D, et al. Quantitative PET in the 2020s: a roadmap. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(6):06RM1.CrossRef
5.
O’connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, Aerts HJ, Barrington SF, Beer AJ, et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(3):169–86.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fahey FH, Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Kocak M, Thurston H, Poussaint TY. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010;37:3660–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA profile for FDG PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Radiology. 2020;294(3):647–57.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, Yap JT, Sunderland JJ, Boellaard R, et al. Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(6):955–61.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Senda M. Standardization of PET imaging and site qualification program by JSNM: collaboration with EANM/EARL. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34(11):873–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Brambilla M, Matheoud R, Secco C, Sacchetti G, Comi S, Rudoni M, et al. Impact of target-to-background ratio, target size, emission scan duration, and activity on physical figures of merit for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 2007;34(10):3854–65.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Doshi NK, Basic M, Cherry SR. Evaluation of the detectability of breast cancer lesions using a modified anthropomorphic phantom. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(11):1951–7.PubMed
13.
Matheoud R, Secco C, Della Monica P, Leva L, Sacchetti G, Inglese E, et al. The effect of activity outside the field of view on image quality for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(19):5861–72.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Inoue K, Sato T, Kitamura H, Hirayama A, Kurosawa H, Tanaka T, et al. An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom for optimization of the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in the pelvis. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23(3):245–55.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):145–52.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jha AK, Mithun S, Puranik AD, Purandare NC, Shah S, Agrawal A, et al. Performance characteristic evaluation of a bismuth germanate-based high-sensitivity 5-ring discovery image quality positron emission tomography/computed tomography system as per National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2–2012. World J Nucl Med. 2019;18(4):351–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Fukukita H, Suzuki K, Matsumoto K, Terauchi T, Daisaki H, Ikari Y, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of version 2.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:693–705.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Matsumoto K, Endo K. Development of analysis software package for the two kinds of Japanese Fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography guideline. Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2013;69:648–54.CrossRef
19.
Smith RJ, Adam LE, Karp JS. Methods to optimize whole body surveys with the C-PET camera. In: Proceedings of the IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (Seattle, WA, 1999), vol. 3. Los Alamitos: IEEE; 1999, pp.1197–1201.
20.
Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trébossen R. Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole-body PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(9):1268–78.PubMed
21.
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1447–52.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Usefulness of a new anthropomorphic phantom simulating the chest and abdomen regions in PET tests
Authors
Hiroaki Sagara
Kazumasa Inoue
Chikara Mano
Hironori Kajiwara
Yuichi Nagai
Hirofumi Fujii
Anri Inaki
Publication date
07-12-2024
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 3/2025
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-024-02007-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2025

Assessment of post-pyeloplasty renal drainage in antenatally detected hydronephrosis by 99mTc-L, L-Ethylenedicysteine renal scintigraphy: the importance of delayed imaging

Current insights on PSMA PET/CT in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a literature review

Comparison of early and standard 18F-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging in treatment-naïve patients with prostate cancer

Increased individual workload for nuclear medicine physicians over the past years: 2008–2023 data from The Netherlands

Congratulations on the 60th anniversary of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine

  • Open Access
  • Commentary

Correction: Estimation of liver standardized uptake value in F18-FDG PET/CT scanning: impact of different malignancies, blood glucose level, body weight normalization, and imaging systems

  • Open Access
  • Correction