Performance evaluation of the GE healthcare eXplore VISTA dual-ring small-animal PET scanner.

UNLABELLED We evaluated the performance characteristics of the eXplore VISTA dual-ring small-animal PET scanner, a stationary, ring-type, depth-of-interaction (DOI) correcting system designed to simultaneously maximize sensitivity, resolution, and resolution uniformity over a field of view sufficient to image rodent-sized animals. METHODS We measured the intrinsic spatial resolution response of the VISTA detector modules, spatial and volume resolution throughout a representative portion of the field of view, and imaged several common resolution phantoms to provide a qualitative picture of resolution performance. We obtained an axial sensitivity profile and measured central point source sensitivity, scatter fractions and noise equivalent count (NEC) rates for rat- and mouse-sized objects using different energy windows, and count rate linearity. In addition, we measured the energy and timing resolution of both of the crystal layers (cerium-doped gadolinium orthosilicate and cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate) that give VISTA machines a DOI compensation capability. We examined the effectiveness of this DOI compensation by comparing spatial resolution measurements with and without the DOI correction enabled. Finally, several animal studies were included to illustrate system performance in the field. RESULTS Spatial and volume resolutions averaged approximately 1.4 mm and 2.9 mm(3), respectively (with 3-dimensional Fourier rebinning and 2-dimensional filtered backprojection image reconstructions and an energy window of 250-700 keV), along the central axis of the scanner, and the spatial resolution was better than 1.7 mm and 2.1 mm at 1 and 2 cm off the central axis, respectively. Central point source sensitivity measured approximately 4% with peak NEC rates of 126.8 kcps at 455 kBq/mL and 77.1 kcps at 141 kBq/mL for mouse- and rat-sized uniform, cylindric phantoms, respectively. The radial spatial resolution at 2.8 cm off axis with DOI compensation was 2.5 mm but degraded (by 56%) to 3.9 mm without DOI compensation (as would be the case with a geometrically identical scanner without DOI correction capability). CONCLUSION These results indicate that the VISTA small-animal PET scanner is well suited to imaging rodent-sized animals. The combination of high spatial resolution, resolution uniformity, sensitivity, and count rate performance, made possible in part by the novel use of phoswich detector modules, confers significant technical advantages over machines with similar geometry but without DOI correction capability.

[1]  Richard E. Carson,et al.  Performance characteristics of the 3-D OSEM algorithm in the reconstruction of small animal PET images , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  R D Badawi,et al.  Randoms variance reduction in 3D PET. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Xuan Liu,et al.  Comparison of 3-D reconstruction with 3D-OSEM and with FORE+OSEM for PET , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  M. Pomper,et al.  Positron emission tomography in molecular imaging. Could the promise of personalized patient care be reaching fruition? , 2004, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[5]  Magnus Dahlbom,et al.  Performance of a YSO/LSO phoswich detector for use in a PET/SPECT system , 1997 .

[6]  Simon R Cherry,et al.  In vivo molecular and genomic imaging: new challenges for imaging physics. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  M. Pomper,et al.  Positron emission tomography in molecular imaging , 2004, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[8]  Michael V. Green,et al.  Depth identification accuracy of a three layer phoswich PET detector module , 1999 .

[9]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 7. A technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. , 1986, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[10]  Martin G Pomper,et al.  Small animal imaging in drug development. , 2005, Current pharmaceutical design.

[11]  Andrew J Reader,et al.  Performance evaluation of the 32-module quadHIDAC small-animal PET scanner. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  S. Cherry,et al.  MicroPET II: design, development and initial performance of an improved microPET scanner for small-animal imaging. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  R. Leahy,et al.  Optimization and performance evaluation of the microPET II scanner for in vivo small-animal imaging , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  S. Siegel,et al.  Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  L. MacDonald,et al.  A YSO/LSO phoswich array detector for single and coincidence photon imaging , 1997, 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[16]  T D Cradduck,et al.  National electrical manufacturers association , 1983, Journal of the A.I.E.E..

[17]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Resolution and noise properties of MAP reconstruction for fully 3-D PET , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Roger Lecomte,et al.  Design of a high resolution positron emission tomograph using solid state scintillation detectors , 1988 .

[19]  R. N. Goble,et al.  Performance evaluation of the microPET R4 PET scanner for rodents , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[20]  U. Pietrzyk,et al.  Design optimization of the PMT-ClearPET prototypes based on simulation studies with GEANT3 , 2002, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[21]  J.A. Correia,et al.  Performance evaluation of MMP-II:A second-generation small animal PET , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[22]  Magnus Dahlbom,et al.  PET system calibrations and corrections for quantitative and spatially accurate images , 1989 .

[23]  John Missimer,et al.  Performance evaluation of the 16-module quad-HIDAC small animal PET camera. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Imaging performance of a-PET: a small animal PET camera , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[25]  James F. Young,et al.  MicroPET: a high resolution PET scanner for imaging small animals , 1996, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[26]  Michael E. Phelps,et al.  Quantitation in Positron Emission Computed Tomography , 1980 .

[27]  S. Cherry,et al.  Performance evaluation of microPET: a high-resolution lutetium oxyorthosilicate PET scanner for animal imaging. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  C Bohm,et al.  Corrections for Attenuation, Scattered Radiation, and Random Coincidences in a Ring Detector Positron Emission Transaxial Tomograph , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[29]  M. Dahlbom,et al.  Investigation of LSO crystals for high spatial resolution positron emission tomography , 1996, 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record.

[30]  R. Lecomte,et al.  Study of light collection in multi-crystal detectors , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[31]  T J Spinks,et al.  Three-dimensional performance of a small-diameter positron emission tomograph. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  R. N. Goble,et al.  Performance evaluation of the microPET P4: a PET system dedicated to animal imaging. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[33]  Ariela Sofer,et al.  Evaluation of 3D reconstruction algorithms for a small animal PET camera , 1996 .