Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard

BackgroundThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the physical performance of a Biograph mCT Flow 64-4R PET/CT system (Siemens Healthcare, Germany) and to compare clinical image quality in step-and-shoot (SS) and continuous table motion (CTM) acquisitions.MethodsThe spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate curves, and Image Quality (IQ) parameters following the National Electrical Manufactures Association (NEMA) NU2-2012 standard were evaluated. For resolution measurements, an 18F point source inside a glass capillary tube was used. Sensitivity measurements were based on a 70-cm-long polyethylene tube, filled with 4.5 MBq of FDG. Scatter fraction and count rates were measured using a 70-cm-long polyethylene cylinder with a diameter of 20 cm and a line source (1.04 GBq of FDG) inserted axially into the cylinder 4.5 cm off-centered. A NEMA IQ phantom containing six spheres (10- to 37-mm diameter) was used for the evaluation of the image quality. First, a single-bed scan was acquired (NEMA standard), followed by a two-bed scan (4 min each) of the IQ phantom with the image plane containing the spheres centered in the overlap region of the two bed positions. In addition, a scan of the same region in CTM mode was performed with a table speed of 0.6 mm/s. Furthermore, two patient scans were performed in CTM and SS mode. Image contrasts and patient images were compared between SS and CTM acquisitions.ResultsFull Width Half Maximum (FWHM) of the spatial resolution ranged from 4.3 to 7.8 mm (radial distance 1 to 20 cm). The measured sensitivity was 9.6 kcps/MBq, both at the center of the FOV and 10 cm off-center. The measured noise equivalent count rate (NECR) peak was 185 kcps at 29.0 kBq/ml. The scatter fraction was 33.5 %. Image contrast recovery values (sphere-to-background of 8:1) were between 42 % (10-mm sphere) to 79 % (37-mm sphere). The background variability was between 2.1 and 5.3 % (SS) and between 2.4 and 6.9 % (CTM). No significant difference in image quality was observed between SS and CTM mode.ConclusionsThe spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, and count rates were in concordance with the published values for the predecessor system, the Biograph mCT. Contrast recovery values as well as image quality obtained in SS and CTM acquisition modes were similar.

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

[2]  Z. Burbar,et al.  Continuous bed motion data processing for a resolution LSO PET/CT scanner , 2005, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005.

[3]  J. Karp,et al.  Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  T. Beyer,et al.  The future of hybrid imaging—part 3: PET/MR, small-animal imaging and beyond , 2011, Insights into imaging.

[5]  W.F. Jones,et al.  A digital architecture for routinely storing and buffering the entire 64-bit event stream at maximum bandwidth for every acquisition in clinical real-time 3-D PET: Embedding a 400 Mbyte/sec SATA RAID 0 using a set of four solid-state drives , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[6]  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.

[7]  W. Moses Time of flight in PET revisited , 2003 .

[8]  Martin A Lodge,et al.  Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: I. Concept, acquisition protocol optimization and clinical application , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  M. E. Casey,et al.  CT density driven continuous bed motion acquisition , 2014, 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC).

[10]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. , 2013, Medical physics.

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

[12]  Harald H Quick,et al.  Implementation and Performance Evaluation of Simultaneous PET/MR Whole-Body Imaging with Continuous Table Motion , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Tobias J. Hagge,et al.  Physics , 1929, Nature.

[14]  J. Martí-Climent,et al.  Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET/CT Biograph mCT scanner ☆ , 2013 .

[15]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  The SMART scanner: a combined PET/CT tomograph for clinical oncology , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[16]  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.

[17]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Methods for improving image quality in whole body PET scanning , 1991, Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

[18]  Magnus Dahlbom,et al.  Implementation of true continuous bed motion in 2-D and 3-D whole-body PET scanning , 2001 .

[19]  Tim Mulnix,et al.  NEMA NU 2 performance tests for scanners with intrinsic radioactivity. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Dependence of image quality on acquisition time for the PET/CT Biograph mCT. , 2014, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[21]  J. Matthews,et al.  Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies , 2014, EJNMMI Physics.

[22]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[23]  H Bergmann,et al.  Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines , 2014, Nuklearmedizin.

[24]  D.F. Newport,et al.  Continuous bed motion acquisition for an LSO PET/CT scanner , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[25]  Helmar Bergmann,et al.  An inter-laboratory comparison study of image quality of PET scanners using the NEMA NU 2-2001 procedure for assessment of image quality , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  J. H. Reed,et al.  PETLINK™ Stream Buffer: Using an FPGA-based RAID controller with solid-state drives to achieve lossless, high count-rate 64-bit coincidence event acquisition for 3-D PET , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[27]  B. Bendriem,et al.  Performance Characteristics of a New LSO PET/CT Scanner With Extended Axial Field-of-View and PSF Reconstruction , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[28]  M. Casey,et al.  Effect of Scan Time on Oncologic Lesion Detection in Whole-Body PET , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[29]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[30]  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.

[31]  Pat Zanzonico,et al.  Positron emission tomography: a review of basic principles, scanner design and performance, and current systems. , 2004, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[32]  Ivo Rausch,et al.  Unterschiede in Systemeigenschaften, Qualitätsstandards und Berücksichtigung internationaler FDG-PET/CT-Bildgebungsrichtlinien , 2014 .

[33]  E. Breeding,et al.  Beyond list mode: On-line rebinning and histogramming for continuous bed motion in clinical whole-body TOF PET/CT , 2010, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference.

[34]  C. Melcher Scintillation crystals for PET. , 2000, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[35]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  The future of hybrid imaging—part 2: PET/CT , 2011, Insights into imaging.

[36]  J. H. Reed,et al.  Continuous bed motion acquisition on a whole body combined PET/CT system , 2002, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[37]  E Prieto,et al.  [Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET/CT Biograph mCT scanner]. , 2013, Revista espanola de medicina nuclear e imagen molecular.

[38]  Magnus Dahlbom,et al.  Characterization of sampling schemes for whole body PET imaging , 1993 .

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