Image Quality and Activity Optimization in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET Using the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System

The first Biograph Vision PET/CT system (Siemens Healthineers) was installed at the University Medical Center Groningen. Improved performance of this system could allow for a reduction in activity administration or scan duration. This study evaluated the effects of reduced scan duration in oncologic 18F-FDG PET imaging on quantitative and subjective imaging parameters and its influence on clinical image interpretation. Methods: Patients referred for a clinical PET/CT scan were enrolled in this study, received a weight-based 18F-FDG injected activity, and underwent list-mode PET acquisition at 180 s per bed position (s/bp). Acquired PET data were reconstructed using the vendor-recommended clinical reconstruction protocol (hereafter referred to as “clinical”), using the clinical protocol with additional 2-mm gaussian filtering (hereafter referred to as “clinical+G2”), and—in conformance with European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. (EARL) specifications—using different scan durations per bed position (180, 120, 60, 30, and 10 s). Reconstructed images were quantitatively assessed for comparison of SUVs and noise. In addition, clinically reconstructed images were qualitatively evaluated by 3 nuclear medicine physicians. Results: In total, 30 oncologic patients (22 men, 8 women; age: 48–88 y [range], 67 ± 9.6 y [mean ± SD]) received a single weight-based (3 MBq/kg) 18F-FDG injected activity (weight: 45–123 kg [range], 81 ± 15 kg [mean ± SD]; activity: 135–380 MBq [range], 241 ± 47.3 MBq [mean ± SD]). Significant differences in lesion SUVmax were found between the 180-s/bp images and the 30- and 10-s/bp images reconstructed using the clinical protocols, whereas no differences were found in lesion SUVpeak. EARL-compliant images did not show differences in lesion SUVmax or SUVpeak between scan durations. Quantitative parameters showed minimal deviation (∼5%) in the 60-s/bp images. Therefore, further subjective image quality assessment was conducted using the 60-s/bp images. Qualitative assessment revealed the influence of personal preference on physicians’ willingness to adopt the 60-s/bp images in clinical practice. Although quantitative PET parameters differed minimally, an increase in noise was observed. Conclusion: With the Biograph Vision PET/CT system for oncologic 18F-FDG imaging, scan duration or activity administration could be reduced by a factor of 3 or more with the use of the clinical+G2 or the EARL-compliant reconstruction protocol.

[1]  Guido Germano,et al.  Recent Advances and Future Progress in PET Instrumentation. , 2016, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[2]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[3]  J. Uribe,et al.  Studies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier–Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of [18F]FDG PET/CT total metabolic active tumour volume and total tumour burden in NSCLC patients , 2019, EJNMMI Research.

[6]  John O. Prior,et al.  Increased 18F-FDG signal recovery from small physiological structures in digital PET/CT and application to the pituitary gland , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[7]  Abdus Sattar,et al.  Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of a Digital PET Prototype in Patients with Oncologic Diseases: Initial Experience and Comparison with Analog PET , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  A. Afshar-Oromieh,et al.  Digital versus analogue PET in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer: a matched-pair comparison , 2019, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[9]  John O. Prior,et al.  Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical 18F-FDG protocols in digital PET/CT and comparison to conventional PMT-based PET/CT , 2020, EJNMMI Physics.

[10]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Quantitative oncology molecular analysis suite: ACCURATE , 2018 .

[11]  G. Davidzon,et al.  Initial experience with a SiPM-based PET/CT scanner: influence of acquisition time on image quality , 2018, EJNMMI Physics.

[12]  W. Oyen,et al.  The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT System According to the NEMA NU2-2012 Standard , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Performance Characteristics of the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  J. Matthews,et al.  Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies , 2014, EJNMMI Physics.

[16]  Christer Halldin,et al.  Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  David W Townsend,et al.  Dual-Modality Imaging: Combining Anatomy and Function* , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  C. Tsoumpas,et al.  Dosage optimization in positron emission tomography: state-of-the-art methods and future prospects. , 2015, American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.