Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems
Abstract Background This article compares the physical performance of the 4-ring digital Discovery MI (DMI) and PMT-based Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems. Physical performance was assessed according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standards. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image qual...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | EJNMMI Physics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0271-x |
| _version_ | 1811271009787969536 |
|---|---|
| author | Alexandre Chicheportiche Rami Marciano Marina Orevi |
| author_facet | Alexandre Chicheportiche Rami Marciano Marina Orevi |
| author_sort | Alexandre Chicheportiche |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background This article compares the physical performance of the 4-ring digital Discovery MI (DMI) and PMT-based Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems. Physical performance was assessed according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standards. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image quality, scatter fraction and count rate performance, and sensitivity. Energy and timing resolutions were also measured. Published DMI and DMI-DR performance studies from other centers are reviewed and compared. Results 4-ring DMI spatial resolution at 1-cm radial offset in the radial, tangential and axial directions was 4.62, 4.18 and 4.57 mm, respectively, compared with the DMI-DR system values of 4.58, 4.52, and 5.31 mm. Measured sensitivity was 13.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 13.4 kcps/MBq 10 cm off-center for the SiPM-based DMI system. DMI-DR system sensitivity was 6.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 6.8 kcps/MBq at 10 cm off-center. DMI measured noise equivalent count rate peak was 175.6 kcps at 20.1 kBq/ml; DMI-DR was 146.7 kcps at 31.7 kBq/ml. Scatter fraction was 40.5% and 36.6%, respectively. DMI image contrast recovery (CR) values ranged from 73.2% (10 mm sphere) to 91.0% (37 mm sphere); DMI-DR, values ranged from 68.4% to 91.4%. DMI background variability (BV) was 1.8%–6.5%; DMI-DR was 2.3%–9.1%. The Q.Clear algorithm improved image quality, increasing CR and decreasing BV in both systems. The photopeak energy resolution was 9.63% and 12.19% for DMI and DMI-DR, respectively. The time-of-flight (TOF) resolution was 377.26 ps and 552.71 ps, respectively. Compared with measurements in other centers, results were similar and showed an absolute mean relative deviation of 6% for DMI and 7% for DMI-DR overall performance results. Conclusions Performance measures were higher for the 4-ring DMI than the DMI-DR system. The biggest advantages of the 4-ring DMI vs DMI-DR are improved sensitivity and count rate performance. This should allow a better image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the same acquisition times or, similar SNR with lower acquisition times or injected activity. In its 3-ring configuration, the DMI showed worse performance results than the PMT-based system in terms of count rate scatter fraction and image quality (for similar axial FOV). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T22:12:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e49b6b66770043b59a122a1dcae6e8ac |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2197-7364 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T22:12:28Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | EJNMMI Physics |
| spelling | doaj.art-e49b6b66770043b59a122a1dcae6e8ac2022-12-22T03:14:41ZengSpringerOpenEJNMMI Physics2197-73642020-01-017112010.1186/s40658-020-0271-xComparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systemsAlexandre Chicheportiche0Rami MarcianoMarina Orevi1Department of Nuclear Medicine and Biophysics, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical CenterDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Biophysics, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical CenterAbstract Background This article compares the physical performance of the 4-ring digital Discovery MI (DMI) and PMT-based Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems. Physical performance was assessed according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standards. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image quality, scatter fraction and count rate performance, and sensitivity. Energy and timing resolutions were also measured. Published DMI and DMI-DR performance studies from other centers are reviewed and compared. Results 4-ring DMI spatial resolution at 1-cm radial offset in the radial, tangential and axial directions was 4.62, 4.18 and 4.57 mm, respectively, compared with the DMI-DR system values of 4.58, 4.52, and 5.31 mm. Measured sensitivity was 13.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 13.4 kcps/MBq 10 cm off-center for the SiPM-based DMI system. DMI-DR system sensitivity was 6.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 6.8 kcps/MBq at 10 cm off-center. DMI measured noise equivalent count rate peak was 175.6 kcps at 20.1 kBq/ml; DMI-DR was 146.7 kcps at 31.7 kBq/ml. Scatter fraction was 40.5% and 36.6%, respectively. DMI image contrast recovery (CR) values ranged from 73.2% (10 mm sphere) to 91.0% (37 mm sphere); DMI-DR, values ranged from 68.4% to 91.4%. DMI background variability (BV) was 1.8%–6.5%; DMI-DR was 2.3%–9.1%. The Q.Clear algorithm improved image quality, increasing CR and decreasing BV in both systems. The photopeak energy resolution was 9.63% and 12.19% for DMI and DMI-DR, respectively. The time-of-flight (TOF) resolution was 377.26 ps and 552.71 ps, respectively. Compared with measurements in other centers, results were similar and showed an absolute mean relative deviation of 6% for DMI and 7% for DMI-DR overall performance results. Conclusions Performance measures were higher for the 4-ring DMI than the DMI-DR system. The biggest advantages of the 4-ring DMI vs DMI-DR are improved sensitivity and count rate performance. This should allow a better image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the same acquisition times or, similar SNR with lower acquisition times or injected activity. In its 3-ring configuration, the DMI showed worse performance results than the PMT-based system in terms of count rate scatter fraction and image quality (for similar axial FOV).https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0271-xNEMAPET/CTPhysical performanceDiscovery MIDiscovery MI-DR |
| spellingShingle | Alexandre Chicheportiche Rami Marciano Marina Orevi Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems EJNMMI Physics NEMA PET/CT Physical performance Discovery MI Discovery MI-DR |
| title | Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems |
| title_full | Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems |
| title_short | Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems |
| title_sort | comparison of nema characterizations for discovery mi and discovery mi dr tof pet ct systems at different sites and with other commercial pet ct systems |
| topic | NEMA PET/CT Physical performance Discovery MI Discovery MI-DR |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0271-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexandrechicheportiche comparisonofnemacharacterizationsfordiscoverymianddiscoverymidrtofpetctsystemsatdifferentsitesandwithothercommercialpetctsystems AT ramimarciano comparisonofnemacharacterizationsfordiscoverymianddiscoverymidrtofpetctsystemsatdifferentsitesandwithothercommercialpetctsystems AT marinaorevi comparisonofnemacharacterizationsfordiscoverymianddiscoverymidrtofpetctsystemsatdifferentsitesandwithothercommercialpetctsystems |