Feasibility of equivalent performance of 3D TOF [18F]-FDG PET/CT with reduced acquisition time using clinical and semiquantitative parameters

Simulated Reduced-Count Whole-Body FDG PET: Evaluation in Children and Young Adults Imaged on a Digital PET Scanner

BACKGROUND. Digital PET scanners with increased sensitivity may allow shorter scan acquisition times or reductions in administered radiopharmaceutical activities. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in children and young adults the impact of shorter simulated acquisition times on the quality of whole-body FDG PET images obtained using a digital PET/CT system. METHODS. This retrospective study included 27 children and young adults (nine male and 18 female patients) who underwent clinically indicated whole-body FDG PET/CT examinations performed using a 25-cm axial FOV PET/CT system at 90 s per bed position (expressed hereafter as seconds per bed). Raw list-mode data were reprocessed to simulate acquisition times of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, and 30 s/bed. Three radiologists independently reviewed reconstructed images and assigned Likert scores for lesion conspicuity, normal structure conspicuity, image quality, and image noise. A separate observer recorded the SUV_max, SUV_mean, and SD of the SUV (SUV_SD) for liver, thigh, and the most FDG-avid lesion. The SUV_SD/SUV_mean (the SUV_SD divided by the SUV_mean) was calculated as a surrogate of image noise. ANOVA, the Friedman test, and the Dunn test were used to compare qualitative measures (combining reader scores) and SUV measurements. RESULTS. The mean patient age was 10.8 ± 8.3 (SD) years, mean BMI was 18.7 ± 2.9, and mean administered FDG activity was 4.44 ± 0.37 MBq/kg (0.12 ± 0.01 mCi/kg). No qualitative measure showed a significant difference versus 90 s/bed for the simulated acquisition at 60 s/bed (all p > .05). Significant differences (all p < .05) versus 90 s/bed were observed for lesion conspicuity at at most 40 s/bed, conspicuity of normal structures and overall image quality at at most 45 s/bed, and image noise at at most 55 s/bed. SUV_mean was not significantly different from 90 s/bed for any site for any reduced-count simulation (all p > .05). SUV_SD/SUV_mean and SUV_max showed gradual increases with decreasing acquisition times and were significantly different from 90 s/bed only for liver at 60 s/bed (for SUV_max: 1.00 ± 0.00 vs 1.05 ± 0.03, p = .02; for SUV_SD/SUV_mean: 0.09 ± 0.02 vs 0.11 ± 0.02, p = .04). CONCLUSION. Favorable findings for the simulated acquisition at 60 s/bed suggest that, in children and young adults who undergo imaging performed using a 25-cm FOV digital PET scanner, acquisition time or administered FDG activity may be decreased by approximately 33% from the clinical standard without significantly impacting image quality. CLINICAL IMPACT. A 25-cm axial FOV digital scanner may allow FDG PET/CT examinations to be performed with reduced radiation exposure or faster scan acquisition times.

EARL compliance measurements on the biograph vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view

Background

Our aim was to determine sets of reconstruction parameters for the Biograph Vision Quadra (Siemens Healthineers) PET/CT system that result in quantitative images compliant with the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. (EARL) criteria. Using the Biograph Vision 600 (Siemens Healthineers) PET/CT technology but extending the axial field of view to 106 cm, gives the Vision Quadra currently an around fivefold higher sensitivity over the Vision 600 with otherwise comparable spatial resolution. Therefore, we also investigated how the number of incident positron decays—i.e., exposure—affects EARL compliance. This will allow estimating a minimal acquisition time or a minimal applied dose in clinical scans while retaining data comparability.

Methods

We measured activity recovery curves on a NEMA IEC body phantom filled with an aqueous ¹⁸F solution and a sphere to background ratio of 10–1 according to the latest EARL guidelines. Reconstructing 3570 image sets with varying OSEM PSF iterations, post-reconstruction Gaussian filter full width at half maximum (FWHM), and varying exposure from 59 kDecays/ml (= 3 s frame duration) to 59.2 MDecays/ml (= 1 h), allowed us to determine sets of parameters to achieve compliance with the current EARL 1 and EARL 2 standards. Recovery coefficients (RCs) were calculated for the metrics RC_max, RC_mean, and RC_peak, and the respective recovery curves were analyzed for monotonicity. The background’s coefficient of variation (COV) was also calculated.

Results

Using 6 iterations, 5 subsets and 7.8 mm Gauss filtering resulted in optimal EARL1 compliance and recovery curve monotonicity in all analyzed frames, except in the 3 s frames. Most robust EARL2 compliance and monotonicity were achieved with 2 iterations, 5 subsets, and 3.6 mm Gauss FWHM in frames with durations between 30 s and 10 min. RC_peak only impeded EARL2 compliance in the 10 s and 3 s frames.

Conclusions

While EARL1 compliance was robust over most exposure ranges, EARL2 compliance required exposures between 1.2 MDecays/ml to 11.5 MDecays/ml. The Biograph Vision Quadra’s high sensitivity makes frames as short as 10 s feasible for comparable quantitative images. Lowering EARL2 RC_max limits closer to unity would possibly even permit shorter frames.

Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation

Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transition period in which traditional and new technologies coexist. The effects on the clinical value of PET imaging and its interpretation in routine clinical practice require careful reevaluation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of important factors influencing quantification and interpretation with a focus on recent developments in PET technology. Finally, we discuss the relationship between quantitative accuracy and subjective image interpretation.