Quantitative comparison of PET performance—Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR

Karlberg, Anna; Sæther, Oddbjørn; Eikenes, Live; Goa, Pål Erik

doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7

Cited by 66 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spatial resolution measurements were performed according to the NEMA NU-2 2012 procedure [1] using a set of 18 F point sources with a diameter of less than 1 mm radially and axially. The activity per source was about 1.5 MBq for the two systems.…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems

Chicheportiche

Marciano²,

Orevi

2020

EJNMMI Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This article compares the physical performance of the 4-ring digital Discovery MI (DMI) and PMT-based Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems. Physical performance was assessed according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standards. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image quality, scatter fraction and count rate performance, and sensitivity. Energy and timing resolutions were also measured. Published DMI and DMI-DR performance studies from other centers are reviewed and compared. Results: 4-ring DMI spatial resolution at 1-cm radial offset in the radial, tangential and axial directions was 4.62, 4.18 and 4.57 mm, respectively, compared with the DMI-DR system values of 4.58, 4.52, and 5.31 mm. Measured sensitivity was 13.3 kcps/ MBq at the center of the FOV and 13.4 kcps/MBq 10 cm off-center for the SiPMbased DMI system. DMI-DR system sensitivity was 6.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 6.8 kcps/MBq at 10 cm off-center. DMI measured noise equivalent count rate peak was 175.6 kcps at 20.1 kBq/ml; DMI-DR was 146.7 kcps at 31.7 kBq/ml. Scatter fraction was 40.5% and 36.6%, respectively. DMI image contrast recovery (CR) values ranged from 73.2% (10 mm sphere) to 91.0% (37 mm sphere); DMI-DR, values ranged from 68.4% to 91.4%. DMI background variability (BV) was 1.8%-6.5%; DMI-DR was 2.3%-9.1%. The Q.Clear algorithm improved image quality, increasing CR and decreasing BV in both systems. The photopeak energy resolution was 9.63% and 12.19% for DMI and DMI-DR, respectively. The time-of-flight (TOF) resolution was 377.26 ps and 552.71 ps, respectively. Compared with measurements in other centers, results were similar and showed an absolute mean relative deviation of 6% for DMI and 7% for DMI-DR overall performance results. Conclusions: Performance measures were higher for the 4-ring DMI than the DMI-DR system. The biggest advantages of the 4-ring DMI vs DMI-DR are improved sensitivity and count rate performance. This should allow a better image signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) for the same acquisition times or, similar SNR with lower acquisition times or injected activity. In its 3-ring configuration, the DMI showed worse performance results than the PMT-based system in terms of count rate scatter fraction and image quality (for similar axial FOV).

show abstract

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems

Chicheportiche

Marciano²,

Orevi

2020

EJNMMI Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Commercially available Dixon-based PET/MR attenuation correction (MRAC) differs from density-based PET/CT attenuation correction (CTAC) and has been shown to affect FDG uptake measurements in tumor lesions and in normal appearing structures [4]. Several studies have compared FDG PET images from PET/CT and PET/MR in clinical data [1, 5–13] and found similar diagnostic performance and detection rates, despite some differences in the semi-quantitative assessment of FDG uptake [14]. Unlike previous reports the test-retest repeatability in this study was performed on the same day and patients were randomized regarding the order of PET/CT and PET/MR studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility and repeatability of same-day two sequential FDG PET/MR and PET/CT

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo determine PET/CT and PET/MR reproducibility and PET/MR repeatability of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake measurements in tumors in cancer patients.MethodsThis IRB approved prospective study was performed between October 2015 and February 2016 in consecutive patients who performed same day PET/CT and two sequential PET/MR. Thirty three patients with visible tumors (N = 63) were included. SUV for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were obtained. Volume of interest (VOI) with a threshold of 40% was used and SUV/L’s, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor to liver ratio (T/L) were calculated. Measurements were plotted in a scattered diagram to visually identify correlation, a regression line was drawn and the equation of the line was calculated. Bland-Altman plots expressed as percentages were constructed to assess the agreement between measurements. The maximal clinically acceptable limits range was defined as ±30%.ResultsLesional SUV’s, SUL’s and MTV corrected to body weight (BW) and lean body mass (LBM) demonstrated strong positive linear correlation between PET/CT and PET/MR and between two sequential PET/MR. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from -27.7 to 17.5 with a mean of -5.1 and -27.6 to 17.9 with a mean of -4.9 for SUVpeak and SULpeak, respectively for sequential PET/MR. Other PET metrics demonstrated limits range that is above ±30% between PET/CT and PET/MR and between two sequential PET/MR.ConclusionPET/MR SUV/L peak has a clinically acceptable repeatability performance and can be used to evaluate the response to treatment.

show abstract

“…The performance evaluation was elevated in PET/MR because of the TOF technology. [15] In our study, all hot lesions had a 9% higher average contrast measurement in PET/MR than in PET/ CT. These findings are thought to be due to the high efficiency of PET detectors that are attached to highquality SiPM material in PET/MR systems as well as a special type of MR-based algorithm (Dixon) for attenuation correction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality

Demır¹

2017

TJ Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to explore differences in image quality between PET/MR and PET/CT hybrid imaging systems using standard quality control and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) tests. METHODSImage acquisition and quality control tests were investigated according to the standards of NEMA NU 2-2007 using NEMA phantom and recommended image acquisition techniques. The phantom consists of lesion-like hot spheres of diameters 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm filled with 8:1 18F activity ratio to background. The remaining 28 and 37 mm cold spheres were filled with water only. A 700-mm linear line source was prepared with 3.08 mCi (140.6 MBq), and all essential ROIs were drawn after image acquisition to calculate contrast. RESULTSIn PET/MR, the average contrast of 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm diameter hot spheres in the phantom was 56%, 72%, 78%, and 85%, respectively. While the contrast of 10, 13, 17, and 22 mm diameter hot spheres in PET/CT was 53%, 66%, 72%, and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSIONPET/MR image contrast was higher than PET/CT by 9%.

show abstract

Quantitative comparison of PET performance—Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR

Cited by 66 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems

Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems

Reproducibility and repeatability of same-day two sequential FDG PET/MR and PET/CT

Comparison Between PET/MR and PET/CT: NEMA Tests and Image Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About