Harmonisation of quantitative assessment between different generation of PET/CT: Biograph mCT and Biograph Vision-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Harmonisation of quantitative assessment between different generation of PET/CT: Biograph mCT and Biograph Vision

Published:2024-04-20 Issue:1 Volume:17 Page:44-53
ISSN:2409-9082
Container-title:Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene
language:
Short-container-title:Radiac. gig. (2008)

Author:

Petryakova A. V.¹^ORCID,Chipiga L. A.²^ORCID,Andreev G. A.³,Gromova E. A.³^ORCID,Kataeva G. V.⁴^ORCID,Kovalev K. V.³,Onischenko S. S.⁵^ORCID,Bezumova E. V.⁶^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing; The City Hospital No 40 of the Kurortny District

2. Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing; A. Granov Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Almazov National Medical Research Centre of the Ministry of Health

3. Medical Institute named after Berezin Sergey

4. A. Granov Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Medical Institute named after Berezin Sergey

5. P. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health

6. National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health

Abstract

The usage of modern positron emission tomography scanners, in particular with digital detectors, allows obtaining images with better quality, increases the detection of small pathological lesions, reduces scanning time and the activity administered to the patient which leads to a decrease of patient dose as well. However, the values of the quantitative image parameters shift upward, which can lead to significant differences with the quantitative assessment obtained on the previous generation device. In order to compare quantitative assessments obtained on different generations of PET/CT, it is necessary to harmonise quantitative image parameters and perform regular quality control. The aim of current work is the comparison of different methods for harmonization of quantitative image parameters on the example of harmonisation of two PET/CT: Biograph mCT 128 and Biograph Vision 600. NEMA IEC Body phantom filled with 18F solution was scanned in Listmode in two bed positions with overlap in the sphere area during five minutes per bed position. Recovery coefficient used for harmonisation was measured for each sphere of the phantom. Harmonisation between Vision and mCT was performed using two methods: choosing of harmonised reconstruction parameters and EQ.PET technology. The acceptable divergence range between the recovery coefficients for Vision and for mCT is ±10% (20% range). The recovery coefficients measured for reconstruction: 4 iterations and 5 subsets, ToF+PSF, Gaussian 7 mm, matrix 220x220 completely fit within the 20% range. The recovery coefficients measured using EQ = 6 mm (optimal value) fit within the 20% range except the spheres with a diameter of 10 and 13 mm. Both harmonisation methods allow to approximate the quantitative assessment/ However, EQ.PET has limitations for the small lesions. Choosing harmonised reconstruction parameters is the mostwidely used harmonisation method; the EQ.PET allows to harmonise quantitative assessment without the use of multiple reconstruction protocols and losses in visualization ability

Publisher

SPRI of Radiation Hygiene Prof. PV Ramzaev

Reference19 articles.

1. Rijnsdorp S, Roef MJ, Arends AJ. Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Scans. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(5):847. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11050847.

2. Mansor S, Pfaehler E, Heijtel D, Lodge MA, Boellaard R, Yaqub M. Impact of PET/CT system, reconstruction protocol, data analysis method, and repositioning on PET/CT precision: An experimental evaluation using an oncology and brain phantom. Medical Physics. 2017;44(12): 6413-6424. doi: 10.1002/mp.12623.

3. Chipiga LA, Zvonova IA, Ryzhkova DV, Menkov MA, Dolgushin МB. Levels of patient exposure and a potential for optimization of the pet diagnostics in the Russian Federation. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2017;10(4): 31-43. (In Russian).

4. Tsai YJ, Liu C. Pitfalls on PET/CT Due to Artifacts and Instrumentation. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2021;51(6): 646-656. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.06.015.

5. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and timeof-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2012;53(11): 1716-22. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861.