This preprint is under consideration at European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Pengcheng Hu
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3720-3250
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Purpose: The aim of the study was to explore a fast PET scan protocol of the total-body uEXPLORER scanner by assessing the image quality consistent to that of a conventional digital PET/CT scanner both from the phantom and clinical perspectives.
Methods: The phantom study using a NEMA/IEC NU-2 body phantom was performed both on a total-body PET/CT (uEXPLORER) and a digital routine PET/CT (uMI 780), with hot sphere to background activity concentration ratio of 4:1. The contrast recovery coefficient (CRC), background variability (BV), recovery coefficient RCmax and RCmean were assessed and compared between that in uEXPLORER with the different scanning duration and reconstruction protocols and that in uMI 780 with clinical settings. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the uMI 780 with clinical settings were calculated and used as a threshold to determine the optimized scanning duration and reconstruction protocols were, which can provide a consistent image quality for the two scanners. And subsequently, the proposed protocol was validated by 30 oncological patients. Images acquired in uMI 780 with a 2-3 minute for each bed position were referred as G780. All PET raw data were reconstructed using data-cutting technique to simulate a 30s, 45s or 60s acquisition duration on uEXPLORER. The iterations were 2 and 3 for uEXPLORER, referred as G30s_3i, G45s_2i, G45s_3i, G60s_2i, and G60s_3i. A 5-point Likert scale was used in the qualitative analysis to assess the image quality. The image quality was also compared with the liver COV, the lesion target-to-background ratio (TBR), and the lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
Results: In the phantom study, CRC, BV, RCmax and RCmean in uEXPLORER with different scanning duration and reconstruction iterations were compared with that in uMI 780 with clinical settings and a minor fluctuation was found among different scanning durations. COV of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was 11.6% and determined protocol with a 30-45s scanning duration and 2 or 3 iterations to provide a similar image quality.In the quantitative analysis on the clinical images, there was no significant difference between G780 and G45s_3i. All the other groups in uEXPLORER with a 45s- and above acquisition showed a significantly improved image quality than that in uMI 780 with clinical settings. Comparing the liver COV, there was no significantly difference between G780 and G30s_3i. And no significant difference in lesion TBR was identified between G780 and G45s_2i, while uEXPLORER had a better performance in lesion SNR compared to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated a fast PET protocol with a 30-45s acquisition in uEXPLORER with consistent image quality to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings.
Keywords
total-body PET/CT, digital PET/CT, image quality, protocol optimization
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 19 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 23 Mar, 2021
Review #? received
Received 13 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 12 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 11 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Pengcheng Hu
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3720-3250
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 19 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 23 Mar, 2021
Review #? received
Received 13 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 12 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 11 Mar, 2021
Subject Areas
Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Purpose: The aim of the study was to explore a fast PET scan protocol of the total-body uEXPLORER scanner by assessing the image quality consistent to that of a conventional digital PET/CT scanner both from the phantom and clinical perspectives.
Methods: The phantom study using a NEMA/IEC NU-2 body phantom was performed both on a total-body PET/CT (uEXPLORER) and a digital routine PET/CT (uMI 780), with hot sphere to background activity concentration ratio of 4:1. The contrast recovery coefficient (CRC), background variability (BV), recovery coefficient RCmax and RCmean were assessed and compared between that in uEXPLORER with the different scanning duration and reconstruction protocols and that in uMI 780 with clinical settings. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the uMI 780 with clinical settings were calculated and used as a threshold to determine the optimized scanning duration and reconstruction protocols were, which can provide a consistent image quality for the two scanners. And subsequently, the proposed protocol was validated by 30 oncological patients. Images acquired in uMI 780 with a 2-3 minute for each bed position were referred as G780. All PET raw data were reconstructed using data-cutting technique to simulate a 30s, 45s or 60s acquisition duration on uEXPLORER. The iterations were 2 and 3 for uEXPLORER, referred as G30s_3i, G45s_2i, G45s_3i, G60s_2i, and G60s_3i. A 5-point Likert scale was used in the qualitative analysis to assess the image quality. The image quality was also compared with the liver COV, the lesion target-to-background ratio (TBR), and the lesion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
Results: In the phantom study, CRC, BV, RCmax and RCmean in uEXPLORER with different scanning duration and reconstruction iterations were compared with that in uMI 780 with clinical settings and a minor fluctuation was found among different scanning durations. COV of the uMI 780 with clinical settings was 11.6% and determined protocol with a 30-45s scanning duration and 2 or 3 iterations to provide a similar image quality.In the quantitative analysis on the clinical images, there was no significant difference between G780 and G45s_3i. All the other groups in uEXPLORER with a 45s- and above acquisition showed a significantly improved image quality than that in uMI 780 with clinical settings. Comparing the liver COV, there was no significantly difference between G780 and G30s_3i. And no significant difference in lesion TBR was identified between G780 and G45s_2i, while uEXPLORER had a better performance in lesion SNR compared to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated a fast PET protocol with a 30-45s acquisition in uEXPLORER with consistent image quality to that in uMI 780 with clinical settings.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Loading...