From a PMT-based to a SiPM-based PET system: a study to define matched acquisition/reconstruction parameters and NEMA performance of the Biograph Vision 450

Background The purpose of this work was to propose an approach based on noise measurement to adapt present clinical acquisition and reconstruction parameters adapted to a PMT-based system (Biograph mCT) to a SiPM-based system (Biograph Vision 450) sharing identical geometrical properties. The NEMA performance (NEMA) of the recently released Biograph Vision 450 PET/CT (Vision) was also derived. Methods All measurements were conducted on Vision and Biograph mCT with TrueV (mCT). A full NEMA-based performance was derived for Vision only. The adaptation of acquisition and reconstruction parameters from mCT to Vision was done using the NEMA image quality phantom. The noise level reached using mCT was set as the reference value for six different numbers of net true coincidences. The noise level computed using Vision was matched to the reference noise level (within 0.01%) using a different reconstruction set-up to determine the potential reduction of count numbers for the same noise level. Results Vision sensitivity was 9.1 kcps/MBq for a timing resolution of 213 ps at 5.3 kBq/mL. The NEMA-based CR for the 10-mm sphere was better than 75% regardless the reconstruction set-up studied. The mCT reference noise properties could be achieved using Vision with a scan time reduction (STR) of 1.34 with four iterations and a 440 × 440 matrix size (or STR = 1.89 with a 220 × 220 matrix size) together with a 3D CR improvement of 53% for the 10-mm sphere (24% using 220 × 220). Conclusion The Vision exhibited improved NEMA performances compared to mCT. Using the proposed approach, the time acquisition could be divided by almost two, while keeping the same noise properties as that of mCT with a marked improvement of contrast recovery.

[1]  K. Balakrishnan,et al.  PET timing performance measurement method using NEMA NEC phantom , 2013, 2013 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (2013 NSS/MIC).

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

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

[4]  Nicola Belcari,et al.  Medical applications of silicon photomultipliers , 2019, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment.

[5]  L. Eriksson,et al.  Estimating Image Quality for Future Generations of TOF PET Scanners , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  M. Conti Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  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.

[8]  S. Cherry,et al.  Application of Silicon Photomultipliers to Positron Emission Tomography , 2011, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Gaspar Delso,et al.  Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  An investigation of sensitivity limits in PET scanners , 2007 .

[11]  D. Townsend,et al.  Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  J. Karp,et al.  Improvement in Lesion Detection with Whole-Body Oncologic Time-of-Flight PET , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  Benefit of Improved Performance with State-of-the Art Digital PET/CT for Lesion Detection in Oncology , 2020, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[15]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  T Carlier,et al.  Clinical NECR in 18F-FDG PET scans: optimization of injected activity and variable acquisition time. Relationship with SNR , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Comparison of the Biograph Vision and Biograph mCT for quantitative 90Y PET/CT imaging for radioembolisation , 2020, EJNMMI Physics.

[18]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[19]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Image Quality and Semiquantitative Measurements on the Biograph Vision PET/CT System: Initial Experiences and Comparison with the Biograph mCT , 2020, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.