Comparison of image quality between step-and-shoot and continuous bed motion techniques in whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the same acquisition duration

Yamashita, Shizuya; Yamamoto, Hideya; Nakaichi, Tetsu; Yoneyama, T.; Yokoyama, Keitaro

doi:10.1007/s12149-017-1200-5

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interpretation of SUV metrics is a valuable tool in the assessment of PET/CT scans, as clinically relevant parameters such as d’Amico risk classification, PSA plasma levels and Gleason score correlate significantly with SUV [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. However, SUV is also affected by aspects inherent to the imaging method such as uptake time [ 40 ], reconstruction algorithm used and the use of PSF modelling [ 41 , 42 ], bed motion [ 43 ], use of breathing instructions [ 44 , 45 ], scan time [ 46 ] and scanner properties [ 47 ]. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting SUV for clinical evaluation of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional imaging with 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and positron emission tomography (PET) can fulfill an important role in treatment selection and adjustment in prostate cancer. This article focusses on quantitative assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-PET. The effect of various parameters on standardized uptake values (SUVs) is explored, and an optimal Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) reconstruction is suggested. PET acquisitions of two phantoms consisting of a background compartment and spheres with diameter 4 mm to 37 mm, both filled with solutions of 68Ga in water, were performed with a GE Discovery 710 PET/CT scanner. Recovery coefficients (RCs) in multiple reconstructions with varying noise penalty factors and acquisition times were determined and analyzed. Apparent recovery coefficients of spheres with a diameter smaller than 17 mm were significantly lower than those of spheres with a diameter of 17 mm and bigger (p < 0.001) for a tumor-to-background (T/B) ratio of 10:1 and a scan time of 10 min per bed position. With a T/B ratio of 10:1, the four largest spheres exhibit significantly higher RCs than those with a T/B ratio of 20:1 (p < 0.0001). For spheres with a diameter of 8 mm and less, alignment with the voxel grid potentially affects the RC. Evaluation of PET/CT scans using (semi-)quantitative measures such as SUVs should be performed with great caution, as SUVs are influenced by scanning and reconstruction parameters. Based on the evaluation of multiple reconstructions with different β of phantom scans, an intermediate β (600) is suggested as the optimal value for the reconstruction of clinical 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans, considering that both detectability and reproducibility are relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to human PET studies, where the CBM acquisition method was just recently introduced and is now used for diagnostic [ 18 F]FDG-PET [9,23], this method is rarely applied in preclinical whole-body imaging. The main reason for this is that in preclinical imaging either the transaxial FOV of the preclinical PET scanner is large enough for a whole-body scan of the scanned subject (e.g., mouse), the exact imaging region is known to the examiner (e.g., in subcutaneous tumor studies) or the quantitative properties of PET imaging are prioritized over data on whole-body distribution, which might be the case in imaging of larger animals such as rats or rabbits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main advantage of this method is that it provides a more uniform sensitivity over the entire image and offers better image quality due to over sampling [4], which often aids in the identification of smaller tumors or affected lymph nodes. Preclinical PET systems have implemented CBM since 2009 [5,6], whereas the clinical implementation just started more recently [7][8][9][10]. The main disadvantage of CBM in preclinical imaging is that it usually does not offer the possibility to perform a transmission scan required for AC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Attenuation Correction on Quantification Accuracy in Preclinical Whole-Body PET Images

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Whole-body PET images can be obtained by using the "step-and-shoot" (SaS) method (using multiple bed positions) or continuous bed motion (CBM). As transmission scans are not always feasible, an alternative method where attenuation data can be generated via emission-based attenuation correction (AC) maps is of interest. The aim of this preclinical study was to investigate the influence of the acquisition method and AC on the quantitation accuracy of [ 18 F]FDG-PET. Methods: [ 18 F]FDG-PET phantom images were acquired using either SaS or CBM. Transmission scans were recorded for the SaS method using a 57 Co-point source. Emission-based attenuation sinograms were obtained from the images after segmentation and inverse Fourier rebinning. PET images were reconstructed without AC, transmission based (TX-AC) and emission-based (EM-AC) attenuation correction. Moreover, [ 18 F]FDG-PET scans of rats bearing mammary carcinomas acquired using either SaS or CBM were analyzed retrospectively and quantification in tissues was compared. Results: Phantom recovery coefficients (R C) varied greatly, ranging from 0.49 ± 0.01 to 1.15 ± 0.07, dependent on acquisition method, reconstruction algorithm and AC method. In CBM acquired images, EM-AC improved quantification accuracy when compared to no-AC images in the phantom studies (R C 0.79 ± 0.02 vs. 0.49 ± 0.01, respectively) and in tumors of rats (DMBA model: 1.16±0.42 SUV vs. 0.86±0.28 SUV, respectively). Conclusion: The method of AC has a strong influence on the quantification of [ 18 F]FDG. Our data indicates that EM-AC improves quantification in images obtained by CBM and SaS. However, the obtained values were still underestimated when compared to TX-AC corrected images.

show abstract

“…Durch den herkömmlichen so genannten "Step-and-Shoot"-Modus (Scannen einer Bettposition für eine fixe Scanzeit, dann Verfahren auf die nächste Bettposition) kommt es bei Ganzkörperscans in der Regel zu leichten Unregelmäßigkeiten im geometrischen Sensitivitätsprofil an den Überlappzonen. Um diese effektiv zu umgehen, bieten einige PET/CT-Systeme inzwischen einen weiteren Modus an ("Continuous Bed Motion"), bei dem der Patiententisch während des Scans kontinuierlich bewegt wird, sodass ein sehr homogenes Sensitivitätsprofil realisiert werden kann [14,15]. Ebenfalls ermöglicht wird ein variables Geschwindigkeitsprofil; so können bspw.…”

Section: Szintillatorunclassified

Von PET und PET/CT zur PET/MRT: Ein technologisches Update

Büther

2018

Nuklearmediziner

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDer vorliegende Beitrag beleuchtet die wichtigsten technologischen Neuerungen auf dem Gebiet der Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie (PET) der letzten Jahre. Sowohl auf Seiten der Hardware als auch im Bereich der eingesetzten Algorithmen sorgt der Fortschritt dafür, dass die PET-Bildgebung einer der grundlegenden Pfeiler der nuklearmedizinischen Diagnostik bleiben wird. Insbesondere neue Detektoren (Szintillatormaterialien, Lichtdetektoren, Elektronik) – nicht nur für die neue PET/MRT-Bildgebung, sondern auch für die konventionelle PET/CT-Bildgebung – als auch neue Rekonstruktions- und Korrekturmethoden (iterative sowie Flugzeit- und Punktspreizantwort-basierte Rekonstruktionen, Schwächungs- und Bewegungskorrektur) sind für diese Entwicklung verantwortlich. Besonders im Hinblick auf gesteigerte Sensitivitäten und räumliche Auflösung ergeben sich hiermit interessante Perspektiven sowohl für die Grundlagenforschung als auch für klinische Anwendungen.

show abstract

Comparison of image quality between step-and-shoot and continuous bed motion techniques in whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the same acquisition duration

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans

Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans

Impact of Attenuation Correction on Quantification Accuracy in Preclinical Whole-Body PET Images

Von PET und PET/CT zur PET/MRT: Ein technologisches Update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About