Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Evaluation of PET Image Quality as a Function of Acquisition Time in a New TOF-PET/MRI Compared to TOF-PET/CT—Initial Results

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare only the performance of the PET component between a TOF-PET/CT (henceforth noted as PET/CT) scanner and an integrated TOF-PET/MRI (henceforth noted as PET/MRI) scanner concerning image quality parameters and quantification in terms of standardized uptake value (SUV) as a function of acquisition time (a surrogate of dose). The CT and MR image quality were not assessed, and that is beyond the scope of this study.

Procedures

Five brain and five whole-body patients were included in the study. The PET/CT scan was used as a reference and the PET/MRI acquisition time was consecutively adjusted, taking into account the decay between the scans in order to expose both systems to the same amount of the emitted signal. The acquisition times were then retrospectively reduced to assess the performance of the PET/MRI for lower count rates. Image quality, image sharpness, artifacts, and noise were evaluated. SUV measurements were taken in the liver and in the white matter to compare quantification.

Results

Quantitative evaluation showed strong correlation between PET/CT and PET/MRI brain SUVs. Liver correlation was good, however, with lower uptake estimation in PET/MRI, partially justified by bio-redistribution. The clinical evaluation showed that PET/MRI offers higher image quality and sharpness with lower levels of noise and artifacts compared to PET/CT with reduced acquisition times for whole-body scans while for brain scans there is no significant difference.

Conclusion

The TOF-PET/MRI showed higher image quality compared to TOF-PET/CT as tested with reduced imaging times. However, this result accounts mainly for body imaging, while no significant differences were found in brain imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Townsend DW (2008) Combined positron emission tomography-computed tomography: the historical perspective. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 29:232–235

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sauter AW, Wehrl HF, Kolb A et al (2010) Combined PET/MRI: one step further in multimodality imaging. Trends Mol Med 16:508–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, Judenhofer MS (2008) Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging? Semin Nucl Med 38:199–208

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pichler BJ, Kolb A, Nagele T, Schlemmer HP (2010) PET/MRI: paving the way for the next generation of clinical multimodality imaging applications. J Nucl Med 51:333–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B et al (2011) Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med 52:1914–1922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Delso G, Martinez MJ, Torres I et al (2009) Monte Carlo simulations of the count rate performance of a clinical whole-body MR/PET scanner. Med Phys 36:4126–4135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Catana C, Drzezga A, Heiss WD, Rosen BR (2012) PET/MRI for neurologic applications. J Nucl Med 53:1916–1925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Levin C, Glover G, Deller T et al (2013) Prototype time-of-flight PET ring integrated with a 3T MRI system for simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging [abstract]. J Nucl Med 54(Supplement 2):148

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E et al (2011) Physical performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690. Med Phys 38:5394–5411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levin C, Deller T, Peterson W et al (2014) Initial results of simultaneous whole-body ToF PET/MR [abstract]. J Nucl Med 55(Supplement 1):660

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N et al (2013) Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Invest Radiol 48:241–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dixon WT (1984) Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 153:189–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bley TA, Wieben O, Francois CJ et al (2010) Fat and water magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:4–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, Akers SR (2013) Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol 15:345–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deller T, Grant A, Khalighi MM, et al. (2014). PET NEMA Performance Measurements for a SiPM-Based Time-of-Flight PET/MR System [abstract]. IEEE NSS/MIC:M08-6

  16. Marcelo Queiroz SW, von Schulthess G, Delso G, Veit-Haibach P (2014) Clinical image quality perception and corresponding NECR measurements in PET. J Nucl Med 55(Suppl 1):1

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oehmigen M, Ziegler S, Jakoby BW et al (2014) Radiotracer dose reduction in integrated PET/MR: implications from national electrical manufacturers association phantom studies. J Nucl Med 55:1361–1367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harding K (1991) ICRP 60 and future legislation. Nucl Med Commun 12:753–755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundell G, Hall P, Holm LE (1992) [Follow the ALARA principle]. Lakartidningen 89:3917

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Laffon E, Adhoute X, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2011) Is liver SUV stable over time in (18)F-FDG PET imaging? J Nucl Med Technol 39:258–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Patrick Veit-Haibach received IIS Grants from Bayer Healthcare, Siemens Medical Solutions, Roche Pharma and GE Healthcare, and speaker fees from GE Healthcare. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos G. Zeimpekis.

Additional information

Patrick Veit-Haibach and Gaspar Delso contributed equally to this publication.

Patrick Veit-Haibach and Gaspar Delso contributed equally to this work.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 213 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeimpekis, K.G., Barbosa, F., Hüllner, M. et al. Clinical Evaluation of PET Image Quality as a Function of Acquisition Time in a New TOF-PET/MRI Compared to TOF-PET/CT—Initial Results. Mol Imaging Biol 17, 735–744 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-015-0845-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-015-0845-5

Key words

Navigation