Comparison of dedicated breast positron emission tomography and whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography images: a common phantom study

Satoh, Yoko; Imai, Masamichi; Oda, Hiroshi

doi:10.1007/s12149-019-01422-0

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the detectability of lesions smaller than 5 mm was not evaluated in this study. The cylinder and four spheres were lled with 18 F-FDG solution at a sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio of 8:1 in accordance with a previous study [14]. The background radioactivity at the start of data acquisition by dbPET was set to 2.46 kBq/mL.…”

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These high-resolution breast PET systems have greater photon sensitivity and can improve spatial resolution by setting the detector close to the breast, reducing respiratory movement (either by xing the breast to the PEM detector or by scanning in the prone position for dbPET), and using smaller detection units than those of whole-body PET/CT. Their performances have been evaluated using NEMA-NU4-2008 standards [13], and the physical parameters of dbPET and whole-body PET/CT have been compared using a common breast phantom [14]. In that comparative study, the breast phantom was located at the centre of each scanner, and no studies have reported on the quality of dbPET images close to the edge of the detector.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Motosugi²,

Imai

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We assessed image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) at the detector's edge by phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and % background variability (%N5mm), % contrast (%QH,5mm), and contrast-to-noise ratio (QH,5mm/N5mm) for the 5 mm sphere; and coefficient of variation of the background (CVbackground) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical cases were analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: Closer to the detector’s edge, the %N5mm and CVbackground increased and %QH,5mm and QH,5mm/N5mm decreased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.1±6.2 vs. 6.5±3.4, p=0.0001) and non-peripheral (13.1±7.1 vs. 7.7±7.4, p=0.0004) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.1±6.2 vs. 13.1±7.1, p=0.6367).Conclusion: The phantom study revealed poorer image quality closer to the detector edge at a depth of 1/8 of the axial field of view (FOV) than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, lesion detectability of dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are within the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Motosugi²,

Imai

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The diameters of the spheres arranged inside were 5, 7.5, 10, and 16 mm. The cylinder and four spheres were filled with 18 F-FDG solution at a sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio of 8:1 in accordance with a previous study [14]. The background radioactivity at the start of data acquisition by dbPET was set to 2.46 kBq/mL.…”

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These high-resolution breast PET systems have greater photon sensitivity and can improve spatial resolution by setting the detector close to the breast, reducing respiratory movement, and using smaller detection units with reconstruction methods that are different to those used for whole-body PET/CT. Their performances have been evaluated using NEMA-NU4-2008 standards [13], and the physical parameters of dbPET and whole-body PET/CT have been compared using a common breast phantom [14]. In that comparative study, the breast phantom was located at the centre of each scanner, and no studies have reported on the quality of dbPET images close to the edge of the detector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Satoh¹,

Imai²,

Omiya³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose : We assessed image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) at the detector's edge by phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm in diameter) was filled with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution of sphere-to-background ratio was 8:1. It was positioned such that the spheres were five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and % background variability ( %N 5mm ), % contrast ( %Q H ,5mm ), contrast-to-noise ratio ( Q H ,5mm / N 5mm ), and coefficient of variation of the background ( CV background ) were calculated. Next, tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was also compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: As closer to the detector’s edge, the %N 5mm and CV background increased and %Q H ,5mm and Q H ,5mm / N 5mm decreased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. With regard to clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.1±6.2 vs. 6.5±3.4, p =0.0001) and non-peripheral (13.1±7.1 vs. 7.7±7.4, p =0.0004) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.1±6.2 vs. 13.1±7.1, p= 0.6367).Conclusion : In the phantom study, the image quality decreased closer to the detector’s edge than at a depth of 1/8. In clinical studies, however, the lesion detectability of dbPET was the same even if the lesion was close to the detector’s edge or not, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

“…The cylinder and four spheres were lled with 18 F-FDG solution at a sphere-to-background radioactivity concentration ratio of 8:1 in accordance with a previous study [14]. The background radioactivity at the start of data acquisition by dbPET was set to 2.46 kBq/mL.…”

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Imai

Omiya

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) scanner (Elmamo, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) has received approval from the Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and is commercially available in Japan. We assessed image quality of dbPET at the detector's edge, where the mammary glands near the chest wall are located in phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for the 5-mm sphere, and coefficient of variation of the background (CVB) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard spine PET/CT and prone dbPET were retrospectively analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC decreased while the CVB increased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.38±6.41 vs 6.73±3.5, p=0.0006) and non-peripheral (12.44±5.94 vs 7.71±7.1, p=0.0183) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.4±6.4 vs 12.4±5.9, p=0.8261).Conclusion: The phantom study revealed poorer image quality closer to the detector edge at a depth of <2 cm from the detector's edge than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, the visibility of breast lesions with dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are at least 2 cm from the edge of the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

Comparison of dedicated breast positron emission tomography and whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography images: a common phantom study

Cited by 23 publications

References 25 publications

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About