Optimal whole-body PET scanner configurations for different volumes of LSO scintillator: a simulation study

The axial field of view (AFOV) of the current generation of clinical whole-body PET scanners range from 15–22 cm, which limits sensitivity and renders applications such as whole-body dynamic imaging or imaging of very low activities in whole-body cellular tracking studies, almost impossible. Generally, extending the AFOV significantly increases the sensitivity and count-rate performance. However, extending the AFOV while maintaining detector thickness has significant cost implications. In addition, random coincidences, detector dead time, and object attenuation may reduce scanner performance as the AFOV increases. In this paper, we use Monte Carlo simulations to find the optimal scanner geometry (i.e. AFOV, detector thickness and acceptance angle) based on count-rate performance for a range of scintillator volumes ranging from 10 to 93 l with detector thickness varying from 5 to 20 mm. We compare the results to the performance of a scanner based on the current Siemens Biograph mCT geometry and electronics. Our simulation models were developed based on individual components of the Siemens Biograph mCT and were validated against experimental data using the NEMA NU-2 2007 count-rate protocol. In the study, noise-equivalent count rate (NECR) was computed as a function of maximum ring difference (i.e. acceptance angle) and activity concentration using a 27 cm diameter, 200 cm uniformly filled cylindrical phantom for each scanner configuration. To reduce the effect of random coincidences, we implemented a variable coincidence time window based on the length of the lines of response, which increased NECR performance up to 10% compared to using a static coincidence time window for scanners with a large maximum ring difference values. For a given scintillator volume, the optimal configuration results in modest count-rate performance gains of up to 16% compared to the shortest AFOV scanner with the thickest detectors. However, the longest AFOV of approximately 2 m with 20 mm thick detectors resulted in performance gains of 25–31 times higher NECR relative to the current Siemens Biograph mCT scanner configuration.

[1]  C. Ogden,et al.  Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2007-2010. , 2012, Vital and health statistics. Series 11, Data from the National Health Survey.

[2]  J. Karp,et al.  Imaging study of a clinical PET scanner design using an optimal crystal thickness and scanner axial FOV , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

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

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

[5]  R D Badawi,et al.  Effect of Object Size on Scatter Fraction Estimation Methods for PET—A Computer Simulation Study , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[6]  P E Kinahan,et al.  Effective count rates for PET scanners with reduced and extended axial field of view , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  W W Moses,et al.  OpenPET: A Flexible Electronics System for Radiotracer Imaging , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[8]  M. Conti,et al.  Time Resolution for Scattered and Unscattered Coincidences in a TOF PET Scanner , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[9]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  State of the art and challenges of time-of-flight PET. , 2009, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[10]  Nelleke Tolboom,et al.  Image-derived input functions for PET brain studies , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  P E Kinahan,et al.  Measured count-rate performance of the Discovery STE PET/CT scanner in 2D, 3D and partial collimation acquisition modes , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Joseph C. Wu,et al.  Comparison of Imaging Techniques for Tracking Cardiac Stem Cell Therapy , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[15]  Hongdi Li,et al.  The initial design and feasibility study of an affordable high-resolution 100-cm long PET , 2007, 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[16]  Nuno Ferreira,et al.  Sensitivity assessment of wide Axial Field of View PET systems via Monte Carlo simulations of NEMA-like measurements , 2007 .

[17]  Ran Klein,et al.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  Konstantina S. Nikita,et al.  Validation of a GATE model for the simulation of the Siemens biograph™ 6 PET scanner , 2007 .

[19]  S. Cherry.  The 2006 Henry N. Wagner Lecture: Of mice and men (and positrons)--advances in PET imaging technology. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  M. Conti.  Tailoring PET time coincidence window using CT morphological information , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[21]  C. Michel,et al.  Influence of crystal material on the performance of the HiRez 3D PET scanner: A Monte-Carlo study , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[22]  Jan Pruim,et al.  Comparison of image-derived and arterial input functions for estimating the rate of glucose metabolism in therapy-monitoring 18F-FDG PET studies. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[23]  S. Nehmeh,et al.  Validation of GATE Monte Carlo simulations of the GE Advance/Discovery LS PET scanners. , 2005, Medical physics.

[24]  Fritz Schick,et al.  Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential , 2005, European Radiology.

[25]  M. Dahlbom,et al.  Comparison of noise equivalent count rates and image noise , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[26]  C. Comtat,et al.  Monte Carlo Simulation for the ECAT EXACT HR+ system using GATE , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[27]  M. Moszynski,et al.  Non-proportionality and thermoluminescence of LSO:Ce , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[28]  C. Michel,et al.  Performance of a high sensitivity PET scanner based on LSO panel detectors , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[29]  M. Moszynski,et al.  Non-proportionality and thermoluminescence of LSO:Ce , 2005, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[30]  D. Visvikis,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Imaging characteristics of a 3-dimensional GSO whole-body PET camera. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  K. Ote,et al.  A high-throughput whole-body PET scanner using flat panel PS-PMTs , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[33]  S.D. Wollenweber,et al.  Calculation of noise-equivalent image quality , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[34]  Michael E. Casey,et al.  A 10-mc/s, 0.5-/spl mu/m CMOS constant-fraction discriminator having built-in pulse tail cancellation , 2001 .

[35]  Jinyi Qi,et al.  Comparison of rectangular and dual-planar positron emission mammography scanners , 2001, 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (Cat. No.01CH37310).

[36]  Martin A. Lodge,et al.  Non-invasive assessment of skeletal kinetics using fluorine-18 fluoride positron emission tomography: evaluation of image and population-derived arterial input functions , 1999, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  Thomas K. Lewellen,et al.  The effect of camera geometry on singles flux, scatter fraction and trues and randoms sensitivity for cylindrical 3D PET-a simulation study , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[38]  W. Moses,et al.  Prospects for time-of-flight PET using LSO scintillator , 1999 .

[39]  G. Muehllehner,et al.  A model of the high count rate performance of NaI(Tl)-based PET detectors , 1997, 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[40]  P. Bartzakos,et al.  A Depth-encoded PET Detector , 1990, 1990 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

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