Improvement of image quality for small lesion sizes in 18F-FDG prone breast silicon photomultiplier-based PET/CT imaging

Document Type : Technical note

Authors

1 Department of Radiology, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, Japan

2 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, Izumo, Japan

3 Division of Medical Informatics, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, Japan

Abstract

Objective(s): We investigated image quality and standardized uptake values (SUVs) for different lesion sizes using clinical data generated by 18F-FDG-prone breast silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-based positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT).
Methods: We evaluated the effect of point-spread function (PSF) modeling and Gaussian filtering (Gau) and determined the optimal reconstruction conditions. We compared the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast, %coefficient of variation (%CV), SUV, and Likert scale score between ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) time-of-flight (TOF) and OSEM+TOF+PSF in phantom and clinical studies. The conventional image was generated with OSEM+TOF_Gau 6 mm. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association body phantom with 10-mm hot sphere data was acquired for 5 min. Twenty-six patients (40 lesions, ranging from 3.7 to 63.0 mm) were examined using prone breast PET/CT with a breast positioner for breast cancer staging. PET data were acquired 125±9.7 min after intravenous injection of 220±16.1 MBq at 5 min/bed.
Results: In the phantom study, a high SNR was obtained from a 3- to 5-mm Gaussian filter for OSEM+TOF+PSF. The contrast obtained with OSEM+TOF without Gaussian filtering was superior to that obtained with OSEM+TOF+PSF_Gau 4 mm. In the clinical study, the image quality depended on lesion size. The average SNR was significantly higher at 40.8% for lesions >20 mm with OSEM+TOF_Gau 6 mm than with OSEM+TOF without Gaussian filtering. The average contrast for lesions ≤10 mm was significantly higher by 42.0% with OSEM+TOF without Gaussian filtering than with OSEM+TOF_Gau 6 mm. The average SUVmax of OSEM+TOF without Gaussian filtering significantly increased by 53.3% for lesions ≤10 mm.
Conclusion: OSEM+TOF without Gaussian filtering provided good contrast and quantitative value for small lesions.


Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Champion L, Brain E, Giraudet AL, Le Stanc E, Wartski M, Edeline V, et al. Breast cancer recurrence diagnosis suspected on tumor marker rising: value of whole-body 18FDG-PET/CT imaging and impact on patient Cancer. 2011; 117(8): 1621-1629.
  2. Kaida H, Ishibashi M, Fuji T, Kurata S, Uchida M, Baba K, et al. Improved breast cancer detection of prone breast fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in 118 patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2008; 29(10): 885-893.
  3. Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013; 266(2): 388-405.
  4. Abramson RG, Lambert KF, Jones-Jackson LB, Arlinghaus LR, Williams J, Abramson VG, et al. Prone versus supine breast FDG-PET/CT for assessing locoregional disease distribution in locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22(7): 853-859.
  5. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Kumnig G, Gomez I, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast. 2003; 12(1):17-22.
  6. Gnesin S, Kieffer C, Zeimpekis K, Papazyan JP, Guignard R, Prior JO, et al. Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical 18F-FDG protocols in digital PET/CT and comparison to conventional PMT-based PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 7(1):1-6.
  7. Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-González J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT system according to the nema NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2019; 60(4): 561-567.
  8. Zhang J, Maniawski P, Knopp MV. Performance evaluation of the next generation solid-state digital photon counting PET/CT system. EJNMMI Res. 2018; 8(1):97.
  9. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Lagerweij MC, Arkies H, de Boer J, Oostdijk AH, et al. Improving the detection of small lesions using a state-of-the-art time-of-flight PET/CT system and small-voxel reconstructions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2015; 43(1): 21-27.
  10. Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2016; 3:3.
  11. Koopman D, Groot Koerkamp M, Jager PL, Arkies H, Knollema S, Slump CH, et al. Digital PET compliance to EARL accreditation specifications. EJNMMI Phys. 2017; 4(1): 9.
  12. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 40:985-996.
  13. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37:181-200.
  14. Lyons K, Seghers V, Williams JL, Sorensen JI, Paldino MJ, Krishnamurthy R, et al. Qualitative FDG PET Image Assessment Using Automated Three-Segment MR Attenuation Correction Versus CT Attenuation Correction in a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital: A Prospective Study. Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205(3):652-658.
  15. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(11): 1716-1722.
  16. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013; 40(6): 064301.
  17. Nassar L, Kassas M, Abi-Ghanem AS, El-Jebai M, Al-Zakleet S, Baassiri AS, et al. Prone versus supine FDG PET/CT in the staging of breast cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(3): 367.
  18. Baun C, Falch K, Gerke O, Hansen J, Nguyen T, Alavi A, et al. Quantification of FDG-PET/CT with delayed imaging in patients with newly diagnosed recurrent breast cancer. BMC Med Imaging. 2018; 18(1): 11.
  19. Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(9):1378-1385.
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology
Volume 13, Issue 1
January 2025
Pages 77-86

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics