Fully Digital PET is Unaffected by Any Deterioration in TOF Resolution and TOF Image Quality in the Wide Range of Routine PET Count Rates

Overview

Journal EJNMMI Phys

Specialty Radiology

Date 2021 Jan 7

PMID 33409746

Citations 4

Authors

Julien Salvadori

Freddy Odille

Gilles Karcher

Pierre-Yves Marie

Laetitia Imbert

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Digital PET involving silicon photomultipliers (SiPM) provides an enhanced time-of-flight (TOF) resolution as compared with photomultiplier (PMT)-based PET, but also a better prevention of the count-related rises in dead time and pile-up effects mainly due to smaller trigger domains (i.e., the detection surfaces associated with each trigger circuit). This study aimed to determine whether this latter property could help prevent against deteriorations in TOF resolution and TOF image quality in the wide range of PET count rates documented in clinical routine.

Methods: Variations, according to count rates, in timing resolution and in TOF-related enhancement of the quality of phantom images were compared between the first fully digital PET (Vereos) and a PMT-based PET (Ingenuity). Single-count rate values were additionally extracted from the list-mode data of routine analog- and digital-PET exams at each 500-ms interval, in order to determine the ranges of routine PET count rates.

Results: Routine PET count rates were lower for the Vereos than for the Ingenuity. For Ingenuity, the upper limits were estimated at approximately 21.7 and 33.2 Mcps after injection of respectively 3 and 5 MBq.kg of current F-labeled tracers. At 5.8 Mcps, corresponding to the lower limit of the routine count rates documented with the Ingenuity, timing resolutions provided by the scatter phantom were 326 and 621 ps for Vereos and Ingenuity, respectively. At higher count rates, timing resolution was remarkably stable for Vereos but exhibited a progressive deterioration for Ingenuity, respectively reaching 732 and 847 ps at the upper limits of 21.7 and 33.2 Mcps. The averaged TOF-related gain in signal/noise ratio was stable at approximately 2 for Vereos but decreased from 1.36 at 5.8 Mcps to 1.14 and 1.00 at respectively 21.7 and 33.2 Mcps for Ingenuity.

Conclusion: Contrary to the Ingenuity PMT-based PET, the Vereos fully digital PET is unaffected by any deterioration in TOF resolution and consequently, in the quality of TOF images, in the wide range of routine PET count rates. This advantage is even more striking with higher count-rates for which the preferential use of digital PET should be further recommended (i.e., dynamic PET recording, higher injected activities).

Citing Articles

Comparison of Digital versus Analog Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Performance in Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Patients with Early Biochemical Recurrence or Persistence after Radical Treatment.

Rovera G, Grimaldi S, DallArmellina S, Zotta M, Finessi M, Passera R Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(23).

PMID: 38066776 PMC: 10706683. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13233535.

An artificial intelligence-driven image quality assessment system for whole-body [F]FDG PET/CT.

Qi C, Wang S, Yu H, Zhang Y, Hu P, Tan H Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 50(5):1318-1328.

PMID: 36529840 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-06078-z.

PET Imaging in Neuro-Oncology: An Update and Overview of a Rapidly Growing Area.

Verger A, Kas A, Darcourt J, Guedj E Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(5).

PMID: 35267411 PMC: 8909369. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051103.

Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Positron Emission Tomography Molecular Imaging for Parkinsonism: A Fast-Developing Field.

Verger A, Grimaldi S, Ribeiro M, Frismand S, Guedj E Ann Neurol. 2021; 90(5):711-719.

PMID: 34338333 PMC: 9291534. DOI: 10.1002/ana.26187.

References

Gundacker S, Turtos R, Auffray E, Paganoni M, Lecoq P . High-frequency SiPM readout advances measured coincidence time resolution limits in TOF-PET. Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64(5):055012. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aafd52. View

Nguyen N, Vercher-Conejero J, Sattar A, Miller M, Maniawski P, Jordan D . 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(9):1378-85. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.148338. View

Gundacker S, Heering A . The silicon photomultiplier: fundamentals and applications of a modern solid-state photon detector. Phys Med Biol. 2020; 65(17):17TR01. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab7b2d. View

Salvadori J, Odille F, Verger A, Olivier P, Karcher G, Marie P . Head-to-head comparison between digital and analog PET of human and phantom images when optimized for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from small lesions. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 7(1):11. PMC: 7035408. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-020-0281-8. View

Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Beyer T, Carrio I . Performance Evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT System According to the NEMA NU2-2012 Standard. J Nucl Med. 2018; 60(4):561-567. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.215541. View

Huo L, Li N, Wu H, Zhu W, Xing H, Ba J . Performance evaluation of a new high-sensitivity time-of-flight clinical PET/CT system. EJNMMI Phys. 2018; 5(1):29. PMC: 6269439. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-018-0229-4. View

Salvadori J, Perrin M, Marie P, Imbert L, Verger A . High-Resolution Brain 18F-FDG Images Provided by Fully Digital PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2019; 44(4):301-302. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002483. View

Salvadori J, Imbert L, Perrin M, Karcher G, Lamiral Z, Marie P . Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera. EJNMMI Res. 2019; 9(1):61. PMC: 6626093. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5. View

Kolthammer J, Su K, Grover A, Narayanan M, Jordan D, Muzic R . Performance evaluation of the Ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59(14):3843-59. PMC: 4457340. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3843. View

10.

Brasse D, Kinahan P, Lartizien C, Comtat C, Casey M, Michel C . Correction methods for random coincidences in fully 3D whole-body PET: impact on data and image quality. J Nucl Med. 2005; 46(5):859-67. View

11.

Efthimiou N, Thielemans K, Emond E, Cawthorne C, Archibald S, Tsoumpas C . Use of non-Gaussian time-of-flight kernels for image reconstruction of Monte Carlo simulated data of ultra-fast PET scanners. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 7(1):42. PMC: 7305275. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-020-00309-8. View

12.

Boellaard R, ODoherty M, Weber W, Mottaghy F, Lonsdale M, Stroobants S . FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 37(1):181-200. PMC: 2791475. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4. View

13.

Casey M, Hoffman E . Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 7. A technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986; 10(5):845-50. View

14.

Michopoulou S, OShaughnessy E, Thomson K, Guy M . Discovery Molecular Imaging Digital Ready PET/CT performance evaluation according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. Nucl Med Commun. 2018; 40(3):270-277. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000962. View

15.

Karp J, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon M, Muehllehner G . Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(3):462-70. PMC: 2639717. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.044834. View

16.

Fuentes-Ocampo F, Lopez-Mora D, Flotats A, Paillahueque G, Camacho V, Duch J . Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46(8):1745-1750. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4256-0. View

17.

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

18.

Hsu D, Ilan E, Peterson W, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin C . Studies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier-Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58(9):1511-1518. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.189514. View

19.

Rausch I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Dapra D, Gallowitsch H, Lind P, Beyer T . Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2015; 2(1):26. PMC: 4883615. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-015-0132-1. View

20.

van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, van Snick P, Borra R, Dierckx R . Image Quality and Semiquantitative Measurements on the Biograph Vision PET/CT System: Initial Experiences and Comparison with the Biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2019; 61(1):129-135. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227801. View