Back to Search Start Over

Evaluation of image quality with four positron emitters and three preclinical PET/CT systems

Authors :
Jarmo Teuho
Leon Riehakainen
Aake Honkaniemi
Olli Moisio
Chunlei Han
Marko Tirri
Shihao Liu
Tove J. Grönroos
Jie Liu
Lin Wan
Xiao Liang
Yiqing Ling
Yuexuan Hua
Anne Roivainen
Juhani Knuuti
Qingguo Xie
Mika Teräs
Nicola D’Ascenzo
Riku Klén
Source :
EJNMMI Research, Vol 10, Iss 1, Pp 1-17 (2020)
Publication Year :
2020
Publisher :
SpringerOpen, 2020.

Abstract

Abstract Background We investigated the image quality of 11C, 68Ga, 18F and 89Zr, which have different positron fractions, physical half-lifes and positron ranges. Three small animal positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) systems were used in the evaluation, including the Siemens Inveon, RAYCAN X5 and Molecubes β-cube. The evaluation was performed on a single scanner level using the national electrical manufacturers association (NEMA) image quality phantom and analysis protocol. Acquisitions were performed with the standard NEMA protocol for 18F and using a radionuclide-specific acquisition time for 11C, 68Ga and 89Zr. Images were assessed using percent recovery coefficient (%RC), percentage standard deviation (%STD), image uniformity (%SD), spill-over ratio (SOR) and evaluation of image quantification. Results 68Ga had the lowest %RC ( 85%) and lowest %STD for the 5 mm rod across all systems. For 11C and 89Zr, the maximum %RC was close (> 76%) to the %RC with 18F. A larger SOR were measured in water with 11C and 68Ga compared to 18F on all systems. SOR in air reflected image reconstruction and data correction performance. Large variation in image quantification was observed, with maximal errors of 22.73% (89Zr, Inveon), 17.54% (89Zr, RAYCAN) and − 14.87% (68Ga, Molecubes). Conclusions The systems performed most optimal in terms of NEMA image quality parameters when using 18F, where 11C and 89Zr performed slightly worse than 18F. The performance was least optimal when using 68Ga, due to large positron range. The large quantification differences prompt optimization not only by terms of image quality but also quantification. Further investigation should be performed to find an appropriate calibration and harmonization protocol and the evaluation should be conducted on a multi-scanner and multi-center level.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2191219X
Volume :
10
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
EJNMMI Research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.2b1021afa00e4f7398647b1a53ae1bfd
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-020-00724-z