Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET

In recent years, there have been multiple advances in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) that improve cancer imaging. The present generation of PET/CT scanners introduces new hardware, software, and acquisition methods. This review describes these new developments, which include time-of-flight (TOF), point-spread-function (PSF), maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) based reconstruction, smaller voxels, respiratory gating, metal artefact reduction, and administration of quadratic weight-dependent 18F–fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) activity. Also, hardware developments such as continuous bed motion (CBM), (digital) solid-state photodetectors and combined PET and magnetic resonance (MR) systems are explained. These novel techniques have a significant impact on cancer imaging, as they result in better image quality, improved small lesion detectability, and more accurate quantification of radiopharmaceutical uptake. This influences cancer diagnosis and staging, as well as therapy response monitoring and radiotherapy planning. Finally, the possible impact of these developments on the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines and EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) accreditation for FDG-PET/CT tumor imaging is discussed.

[1]  Michael I. Miller,et al.  TOF-Benefits on the Philips Digital PET/CT Scanner: Evaluation of Faster Convergence and Reduced Scan Times , 2016 .

[2]  M. Conti Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[3]  Lisa M Rowley,et al.  Optimization of Image Reconstruction for 90Y Selective Internal Radiotherapy on a Lutetium Yttrium Orthosilicate PET/CT System Using a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  L. de Geus-Oei,et al.  Evaluating the use of optimally respiratory gated 18F-FDG-PET in target volume delineation and its influence on radiation doses to the organs at risk in non-small-cell lung cancer patients , 2015, Nuclear medicine communications.

[5]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalents counts , 1990 .

[6]  Joel S Karp,et al.  Total-body imaging: Transforming the role of positron emission tomography , 2017, Science Translational Medicine.

[7]  D. Townsend,et al.  An Assessment of the Impact of Incorporating Time-of-Flight Information into Clinical PET/CT Imaging , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[9]  J. S. Karp,et al.  Recent developments in time-of-flight PET , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[10]  R. Dorscheid,et al.  Performance evaluation of a prototype Positron Emission Tomography scanner using Digital Photon Counters (DPC) , 2012, 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[11]  Roel Wierts,et al.  Multicenter Harmonization of 89Zr PET/CT Performance , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  M. A. van den Bosch,et al.  90Y Hepatic Radioembolization: An Update on Current Practice and Recent Developments , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  S. Nehmeh,et al.  Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a review. , 2008, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[14]  F. Gleeson,et al.  Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[15]  S. Cherry,et al.  Physics in Nuclear Medicine , 2004 .

[16]  H. J. Son,et al.  Optimization of the spatial resolution for the GE discovery PET/CT 710 by using NEMA NU 2-2007 standards , 2015 .

[17]  C. Slump,et al.  Improving the Detection of Small Lesions Using a State-of-the-Art Time-of-Flight PET/CT System and Small-Voxel Reconstructions , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[18]  B. Schölkopf,et al.  Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[19]  Kuan-Hao Su,et al.  Performance evaluation of the Ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  I. Buvat,et al.  Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[22]  C. Slump,et al.  Technical note: how to determine the FDG activity for tumour PET imaging that satisfies European guidelines , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[23]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging , 2013, EJNMMI Research.

[24]  Wei Zhang,et al.  68Ga-NOTA-PRGD2 PET/CT for Integrin Imaging in Patients with Lung Cancer , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Cyrill Burger,et al.  Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner , 2003, European Radiology.

[26]  Dustin Osborne,et al.  Clinical Workflow Considerations for Implementation of Continuous-Bed-Motion PET/CT , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[27]  Harald H Quick,et al.  Current image acquisition options in PET/MR. , 2015, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[28]  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.

[29]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Effect of Time-of-Flight Technique on the Diagnostic Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[30]  F. Gleeson,et al.  Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules , 2015, European Radiology.

[31]  L. de Geus-Oei,et al.  Performance of 3DOSEM and MAP algorithms for reconstructing low count SPECT acquisitions. , 2016, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[32]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Effect of Reconstruction Parameters in High-Definition PET/CT on Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[33]  Thorsten Derlin,et al.  A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of novel continuous bed motion versus traditional bed position whole-body PET/CT imaging , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[34]  Y. Nishiwaki,et al.  Pitfalls in lymph node staging with positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer patients. , 2005, Lung cancer.

[35]  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.

[36]  L. de Geus-Oei,et al.  Metal Artifact Reduction of CT Scans to Improve PET/CT , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  Andre Salomon,et al.  Investigation of practical initial attenuation image estimates in TOF-MLAA reconstruction for PET/MR. , 2016, Medical physics.

[38]  Steven M. Larson,et al.  PET/CT: a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[39]  M. Yao,et al.  Application of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancers. , 2015, World journal of radiology.

[40]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Influence of a post-reconstruction resolution recovery algorithm on quantitation , 2013 .

[41]  P. Goa,et al.  Quantitative comparison of PET performance—Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[42]  Yusheng Li,et al.  Attenuation correction in emission tomography using the emission data--A review. , 2016, Medical physics.

[43]  I. Apostolova,et al.  The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG-PET/CT reconstruction in colorectal liver metastases , 2015, EJNMMI Research.

[44]  D. Binns,et al.  Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[45]  T. Frach,et al.  The digital silicon photomultiplier — Principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[46]  Ge Wang,et al.  Metal Artifact Reduction in CT: Where Are We After Four Decades? , 2016, IEEE Access.

[47]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Characterization of the Vereos Digital Photon Counting PET System , 2015 .

[48]  Mark Lubberink,et al.  Quantitative imaging of 124I and 86Y with PET , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[49]  James Hamill,et al.  Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[50]  S. Surti,et al.  Correction Technique for Cascade Gammas in I-124 Imaging on a Fully-3D, Time-of-Flight PET Scanner , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[51]  W. Oyen,et al.  The impact of respiratory gated positron emission tomography on clinical staging and management of patients with lung cancer. , 2015, Lung cancer.

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

[53]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  Point/counterpoint. Resolution modeling enhances PET imaging. , 2013, Medical physics.

[54]  F. Gleeson,et al.  Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[55]  G. Delso,et al.  Performance Measurements of the Siemens mMR Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Scanner , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[56]  Alexander M. Grant,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. , 2016, Medical physics.

[57]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Emission-based estimation of lung attenuation coefficients for attenuation correction in time-of-flight PET/MR , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[58]  Nicolas Aide,et al.  Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with 18F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems? , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[59]  A. Agrawal,et al.  90Y microsphere therapy: does 90Y PET/CT imaging obviate the need for 90Y Bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT imaging? , 2013, Nuclear medicine communications.

[60]  Johan Nuyts,et al.  Optimized MLAA for quantitative non-TOF PET/MR of the brain , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[61]  Sonja Adebahr,et al.  Impact of 4D-(18)FDG-PET/CT imaging on target volume delineation in SBRT patients with central versus peripheral lung tumors. Multi-reader comparative study. , 2015, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[62]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Metal artifact reduction strategies for improved attenuation correction in hybrid PET/CT imaging. , 2012, Medical physics.

[63]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[64]  Eku Shimosegawa,et al.  Metallic artifacts caused by dental metal prostheses on PET images: a PET/CT phantom study using different PET/CT scanners , 2009, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[65]  Bernd J Pichler,et al.  Combined PET/MR: A Technology Becomes Mature , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[66]  A. Buck,et al.  Is the Image Quality of I-124-PET Impaired by an Automatic Correction of Prompt Gammas? , 2013, PloS one.

[67]  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.

[68]  Tomas Kron,et al.  A prospective investigation into the clinical impact of 4D-PET/CT in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules , 2014, Cancer Imaging.

[69]  A. Pasciak,et al.  A Comparison of Techniques for 90Y PET/CT Image-Based Dosimetry Following Radioembolization with Resin Microspheres , 2014, Front. Oncol..

[70]  Michael Tapner,et al.  A multicentre comparison of quantitative 90Y PET/CT for dosimetric purposes after radioembolization with resin microspheres , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[71]  N. Aide,et al.  Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[72]  R. Rosenfeld Patients , 2012, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[73]  Koichiro Abe,et al.  Improvement in PET/CT Image Quality with a Combination of Point-Spread Function and Time-of-Flight in Relation to Reconstruction Parameters , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[74]  Hee-Joung Kim,et al.  Performance measurement of PSF modeling reconstruction (True X) on Siemens Biograph TruePoint TrueV PET/CT , 2014, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[75]  Tomas Kron,et al.  Geographic miss of lung tumours due to respiratory motion: a comparison of 3D vs 4D PET/CT defined target volumes , 2014, Radiation Oncology.

[76]  Vladimir Y. Panin,et al.  Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[77]  Nicolas Aide,et al.  Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction , 2017, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[78]  T. Frach,et al.  The digital Silicon Photomultiplier — A novel sensor for the detection of scintillation light , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[79]  Shelley N. Acuff,et al.  Improving the Spatial Alignment in PET/CT Using Amplitude-Based Respiration-Gated PET and Respiration-Triggered CT , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[80]  G. Reynés-Llompart,et al.  Performance Characteristics of the Whole-Body Discovery IQ PET/CT System , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[81]  Alessandra Zorz,et al.  Comparative evaluation of CT-based and respiratory-gated PET/CT-based planning target volume (PTV) in the definition of radiation treatment planning in lung cancer: preliminary results , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[82]  R. Boellaard,et al.  EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[83]  A. Iagaru,et al.  Evaluation of a new motion correction algorithm in PET/CT: combining the entire acquired PET data to create a single three-dimensional motion-corrected PET/CT image , 2016, Nuclear medicine communications.

[84]  H. Du,et al.  A new modular and scalable detector for a Time-of-Flight PET scanner , 2012, 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[85]  L A DeWerd,et al.  A new internal pair production branching ratio of 90Y: the development of a non-destructive assay for 90Y and 90Sr. , 2007, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[86]  Martin Gotthardt,et al.  Amplitude-based optimal respiratory gating in positron emission tomography in patients with primary lung cancer , 2014, European Radiology.

[87]  Frédéric Noo,et al.  Effect of Using 2 mm Voxels on Observer Performance for PET Lesion Detection , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.