Investigation of 18F-FDG 3D mode PET image quality versus acquisition time

ObjectiveThree-dimensional (3D) mode positron emission tomography (PET) is being used increasingly for clinical PET imaging. However, as yet, optimal acquisition parameters have not been established. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of varying acquisition time on 3D image quality using standard clinical activities of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Methods18F-FDG phantom and patient PET images were acquired with varying acquisition times on a GE Discovery-STE PET/CT system. The NEMA Image-Quality phantom was imaged with four hot lesions in a uniform background. Images were acquired for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-min frames with three different lesion-to-background contrast ratios. Patient data were investigated using list mode acquisition to obtain comparable 2, 3, and 4-min frames. Qualitative analysis involved grading image quality and lesion detectability. Quantitative analysis of phantom images involved assessing the coefficient of variation (COV) of background areas as a measure of noise, and lesion over background variability as a measure of image quality. Patient data were also assessed using COV analysis of liver uptake. ResultsQualitative and quantitative analysis showed no significant difference in image quality between 4 and 5-min acquisition frames for 3D mode 18F-FDG PET imaging with standard clinical activities. The observers noted no difference in perceived image quality. This finding was supported by COV analysis. ConclusionThis study shows that GE Discovery-STE acquisition frame time can be reduced to 3 min for standard 3D mode imaging at standard clinical activities of 18F-FDG.

[1]  M. Lodge,et al.  Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional acquisition for 18F-FDG PET oncology studies performed on an LSO-based scanner. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  A. Viera,et al.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.

[4]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Val J Lowe,et al.  NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  Georges El Fakhri,et al.  Impact of Acquisition Geometry, Image Processing, and Patient Size on Lesion Detection in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  M C Gilardi,et al.  Two-dimensional vs three-dimensional imaging in whole body oncologic PET/CT: a Discovery-STE phantom and patient study. , 2007, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of....

[8]  R. Wahl,et al.  Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[9]  D. Visvikis,et al.  Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.