Cargando…
Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance
BACKGROUND: A new generation of positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT) was recently introduced using silicon (Si) photomultiplier (PM)-based technology. Our aim was to compare the image quality and diagnostic performance of a SiPM-based PET-CT (Discovery MI; GE Healthcare, Mi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805299/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31640584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-019-0377-6 |
_version_ | 1783461349708267520 |
---|---|
author | Oddstig, Jenny Leide Svegborn, Sigrid Almquist, Helen Bitzén, Ulrika Garpered, Sabine Hedeer, Fredrik Hindorf, Cecilia Jögi, Jonas Jönsson, Lena Minarik, David Petersson, Richard Welinder, Annika Wollmer, Per Trägårdh, Elin |
author_facet | Oddstig, Jenny Leide Svegborn, Sigrid Almquist, Helen Bitzén, Ulrika Garpered, Sabine Hedeer, Fredrik Hindorf, Cecilia Jögi, Jonas Jönsson, Lena Minarik, David Petersson, Richard Welinder, Annika Wollmer, Per Trägårdh, Elin |
author_sort | Oddstig, Jenny |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A new generation of positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT) was recently introduced using silicon (Si) photomultiplier (PM)-based technology. Our aim was to compare the image quality and diagnostic performance of a SiPM-based PET-CT (Discovery MI; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) with a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner with a conventional PM detector (Gemini TF; Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA), including reconstruction algorithms per vendor’s recommendations. METHODS: Imaging of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IEC body phantom and 16 patients was carried out using 1.5 min/bed for the Discovery MI PET-CT and 2 min/bed for the Gemini TF PET-CT. Images were analysed for recovery coefficients for the phantom, signal-to-noise ratio in the liver, standardized uptake values (SUV) in lesions, number of lesions and metabolic TNM classifications in patients. RESULTS: In phantom, the correct (> 90%) activity level was measured for spheres ≥17 mm for Discovery MI, whereas the Gemini TF reached a correct measured activity level for the 37-mm sphere. In patient studies, metabolic TNM classification was worse using images obtained from the Discovery MI compared those obtained from the Gemini TF in 4 of 15 patients. A trend toward more malignant, inflammatory and unclear lesions was found using images acquired with the Discovery MI compared with the Gemini TF, but this was not statistically significant. Lesion-to-blood-pool SUV ratios were significantly higher in images from the Discovery MI compared with the Gemini TF for lesions smaller than 1 cm (p < 0.001), but this was not the case for larger lesions (p = 0.053). The signal-to-noise ratio in the liver was similar between platforms (p = 0.52). Also, shorter acquisition times were possible using the Discovery MI, with preserved signal-to-noise ratio in the liver. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality was better with Discovery MI compared to conventional Gemini TF. Although no gold standard was available, the results indicate that the new PET-CT generation will provide potentially better diagnostic performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6805299 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68052992019-10-24 Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance Oddstig, Jenny Leide Svegborn, Sigrid Almquist, Helen Bitzén, Ulrika Garpered, Sabine Hedeer, Fredrik Hindorf, Cecilia Jögi, Jonas Jönsson, Lena Minarik, David Petersson, Richard Welinder, Annika Wollmer, Per Trägårdh, Elin BMC Med Imaging Research Article BACKGROUND: A new generation of positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT) was recently introduced using silicon (Si) photomultiplier (PM)-based technology. Our aim was to compare the image quality and diagnostic performance of a SiPM-based PET-CT (Discovery MI; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) with a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner with a conventional PM detector (Gemini TF; Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA), including reconstruction algorithms per vendor’s recommendations. METHODS: Imaging of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association IEC body phantom and 16 patients was carried out using 1.5 min/bed for the Discovery MI PET-CT and 2 min/bed for the Gemini TF PET-CT. Images were analysed for recovery coefficients for the phantom, signal-to-noise ratio in the liver, standardized uptake values (SUV) in lesions, number of lesions and metabolic TNM classifications in patients. RESULTS: In phantom, the correct (> 90%) activity level was measured for spheres ≥17 mm for Discovery MI, whereas the Gemini TF reached a correct measured activity level for the 37-mm sphere. In patient studies, metabolic TNM classification was worse using images obtained from the Discovery MI compared those obtained from the Gemini TF in 4 of 15 patients. A trend toward more malignant, inflammatory and unclear lesions was found using images acquired with the Discovery MI compared with the Gemini TF, but this was not statistically significant. Lesion-to-blood-pool SUV ratios were significantly higher in images from the Discovery MI compared with the Gemini TF for lesions smaller than 1 cm (p < 0.001), but this was not the case for larger lesions (p = 0.053). The signal-to-noise ratio in the liver was similar between platforms (p = 0.52). Also, shorter acquisition times were possible using the Discovery MI, with preserved signal-to-noise ratio in the liver. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality was better with Discovery MI compared to conventional Gemini TF. Although no gold standard was available, the results indicate that the new PET-CT generation will provide potentially better diagnostic performance. BioMed Central 2019-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6805299/ /pubmed/31640584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-019-0377-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Oddstig, Jenny Leide Svegborn, Sigrid Almquist, Helen Bitzén, Ulrika Garpered, Sabine Hedeer, Fredrik Hindorf, Cecilia Jögi, Jonas Jönsson, Lena Minarik, David Petersson, Richard Welinder, Annika Wollmer, Per Trägårdh, Elin Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title | Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title_full | Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title_fullStr | Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title_short | Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
title_sort | comparison of conventional and si-photomultiplier-based pet systems for image quality and diagnostic performance |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805299/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31640584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-019-0377-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oddstigjenny comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT leidesvegbornsigrid comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT almquisthelen comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT bitzenulrika comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT garperedsabine comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT hedeerfredrik comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT hindorfcecilia comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT jogijonas comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT jonssonlena comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT minarikdavid comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT peterssonrichard comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT welinderannika comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT wollmerper comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance AT tragardhelin comparisonofconventionalandsiphotomultiplierbasedpetsystemsforimagequalityanddiagnosticperformance |