Assessing Time-of-flight Signal-to-noise Ratio Gains Within the Myocardium and Subsequent Reductions in Administered Activity in Cardiac PET Studies

Overview

Journal J Nucl Cardiol

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2017 May 13

PMID 28497418

Citations 5

Authors

Ian S Armstrong

Christine M Tonge

Parthiban Arumugam

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Time-of-flight (TOF) is known to increase signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and facilitate reductions in administered activity. Established measures of SNR gain are derived from areas of uniform uptake, which is not applicable to the heterogeneous uptake in cardiac PET images using fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG). This study aimed to develop a technique to quantify SNR gains within the myocardium due to TOF.

Methods: Reference TOF SNR gains were measured in 88 FDG oncology patients. Phantom data were used to translate reference SNR gains and validate a method of quantifying SNR gains within the myocardium from parametric images produced from multiple replicate images. This technique was applied to 13 FDG cardiac viability patients.

Results: Reference TOF SNR gains of +23% ± 8.5% were measured in oncology patients. Measurements of SNR gain from the phantom data were in agreement and showed the parametric image technique to be sufficiently robust. SNR gains within the myocardium in the viability patients were +21% ± 2.8%.

Conclusion: A method to quantify SNR gains from TOF within the myocardium has been developed and evaluated. SNR gains within the myocardium are comparable to those observed by established methods. This allows guidance for protocol optimization for TOF systems in cardiac PET.

Citing Articles

Feasibility of shortening scan duration of F-FDG myocardial metabolism imaging using a total-body PET/CT scanner.

Zhang X, Xiang Z, Wang F, Han C, Zhang Q, Liu E EJNMMI Phys. 2024; 11(1):83.

PMID: 39390229 PMC: 11467154. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-024-00689-1.

EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging.

Sciagra R, Lubberink M, Hyafil F, Saraste A, Slart R, Agostini D Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 48(4):1040-1069.

PMID: 33135093 PMC: 7603916. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05046-9.

The effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling on Rb myocardial perfusion imaging of obese patients.

Dasari P, Jones J, Casey M, Liang Y, Dilsizian V, Smith M J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 25(5):1521-1545.

PMID: 29907933 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-018-1311-y.

Understanding the impact of advanced PET reconstruction in cardiac PET: The devil is in the details.

Armstrong I J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 25(5):1546-1549.

PMID: 29907932 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-018-1329-1.

Does time-of-flight improve image quality in the heart?.

Wells R, deKemp R J Nucl Cardiol. 2017; 26(2):413-416.

PMID: 28718075 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-017-0992-y.

References

Berman D, Maddahi J, Tamarappoo B, Czernin J, Taillefer R, Udelson J . Phase II safety and clinical comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease: flurpiridaz F 18 positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 61(4):469-477. PMC: 4316725. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.022. View

Jakoby B, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey M, Bendriem B, Townsend D . Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(8):2375-89. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/004. View

McDermott G, Chowdhury F, Scarsbrook A . Evaluation of noise equivalent count parameters as indicators of adult whole-body FDG-PET image quality. Ann Nucl Med. 2013; 27(9):855-61. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-013-0760-2. View

DiFilippo F, Brunken R . Impact of Time-of-Flight Reconstruction on Cardiac PET Images of Obese Patients. Clin Nucl Med. 2016; 42(2):e103-e108. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001441. View

Kadrmas D, Oktay M, Casey M, Hamill J . Effect of Scan Time on Oncologic Lesion Detection in Whole-Body PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013; 59(5):1940-1947. PMC: 3535285. DOI: 10.1109/TNS.2012.2197414. View

Schmidtlein C, Beattie B, Bailey D, Akhurst T, Wang W, Gonen M . Using an external gating signal to estimate noise in PET with an emphasis on tracer avid tumors. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55(20):6299-326. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/20/016. View

Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey M, Chen M, Kehren F, Michel C . First experimental results of time-of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(19):4507-26. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/19/006. View

Yu M, Nekolla S, Schwaiger M, Robinson S . The next generation of cardiac positron emission tomography imaging agents: discovery of flurpiridaz F-18 for detection of coronary disease. Semin Nucl Med. 2011; 41(4):305-13. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2011.02.004. View

Dorbala S, Blankstein R, Skali H, Park M, Fantony J, Mauceri C . Approaches to reducing radiation dose from radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(4):592-9. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.115097. View

10.

Oldan J, Shah S, Brunken R, DiFilippo F, Obuchowski N, Bolen M . Do myocardial PET-MR and PET-CT FDG images provide comparable information?. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015; 23(5):1102-1109. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-015-0159-7. View

11.

Queiroz M, Delso G, Wollenweber S, Deller T, Zeimpekis K, Huellner M . Dose Optimization in TOF-PET/MR Compared to TOF-PET/CT. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0128842. PMC: 4493146. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128842. View

12.

Cerqueira M, Allman K, Ficaro E, Hansen C, Nichols K, Thompson R . Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010; 17(4):709-18. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9244-0. View

13.

Lois C, Jakoby B, Long M, Hubner K, Barker D, Casey M . An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(2):237-45. PMC: 2818518. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.068098. View

14.

Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S . Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(11):1716-22. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861. View

15.

Budinger T . Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983; 24(1):73-8. View

16.

Armstrong I, James J, Williams H, Kelly M, Matthews J . The assessment of time-of-flight on image quality and quantification with reduced administered activity and scan times in 18F-FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2015; 36(7):728-37. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000305. View

17.

Levin C, Maramraju S, Khalighi M, Deller T, Delso G, Jansen F . Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016; 35(8):1907-14. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2537811. View

18.

Kadrmas D, Casey M, Conti M, Jakoby B, Lois C, Townsend D . Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50(8):1315-23. PMC: 2786272. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063016. View

19.

Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner M, Perkins A, Kolthammer J, Karp J . Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(3):471-80. View