Advertisement

Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions

  • Francisco Fuentes-OcampoEmail author
  • Diego Alfonso López-Mora
  • Albert Flotats
  • Gabriela Paillahueque
  • Valle Camacho
  • Joan Duch
  • Alejandro Fernández
  • Anna Domènech
  • Montserrat Estorch
  • Ignasi Carrió
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess whether digital photon counting technology in digital PET/CT influences the quantification of SUVmax in target lesions and regions of reference compared to analog PET/CT before an interchangeable use of either system in follow up studies.

Methods

From January to June of 2018, 100 oncological patients underwent successive PET/CT imaging with digital and analog systems in the same day. Fifty-eight patients underwent analog imaging first and digital imaging thereafter, and 42 patients the other way round. SUVmax was measured in reference regions (liver and mediastinal blood pool) and in the most metabolically active target lesion in each patient. According to the sequence order of PET/CT acquisition, two groups of SUVmax values were obtained, i.e. group 1: analog PET/CT performed first; group 2: digital PET/CT performed first.

Results

Mean SUVmax in the total sample (regardless of the order of PET/CT acquisition) in the target lesions with the analog PET/CT was 8.14 ± 6.39 and the digital 9.97 ± 6.14 (P = 0.000). Total mean SUVmax in the liver with the analog was 4.39 ± 2.59 and the digital 4.46 ± 3.18 (P = 0.477). Total mean SUVmax in the mediastinal blood pool with the analog was 2.30 ± 0.67 and the digital 2.54 ± 0.74 (P = 0.000).

Group 1: mean SUVmax in the target lesions with the analog system was 6.64 ± 4.71 and the digital 9.48 ± 5.60 (P = 0.000). Mean liver SUVmax with the analog was 4.70 ± 2.90 and the digital 4.80 ± 3.72 (P = 0.088). Mediastinal blood pool SUVmax with the analog was 2.33 ± 0.66 and the digital 2.45 ± 0.73 (P = 0.041).

Group 2: mean SUVmax in target lesions with the digital system was 10.63 ± 6.88 and the analog 10.16 ± 7.76 (P = 0.046). Mean liver SUVmax with the digital was 3.99 ± 2.20 and the analog 3.96 ± 2.04 (P = 0.218). Mediastinal blood pool SUVmax with the digital was 2.66 ± 0.75 and the analog 2.27 ± 0.68 (P = 0.000).

No significant differences between both time delays were found.

Conclusions

Improved photon counting technology in the digital PET/CT, and the effect of delayed increased uptake and retention significantly increases SUVmax values. This has to be taken into account before interchangeable use of either system in follow up studies.

Keywords

Digital PET/CT Analog PET/CT SUVmax Intra-subject comparison 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by an unrestricted Philips Healthcare grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance evaluation of the Philips Vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2018; in press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46:5–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slomka PJ, Pan T, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in SPECT and PET hardware. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57:566–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1378–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wright CL, Binzel K, Zhang J, Knopp MV. Advanced functional tumor imaging and precision nuclear medicine enabled by digital PET technologies. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5260305.
  6. 6.
    Roncali E, Cherry SR. Application of silicon photomultipliers to positron emission tomography. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39:1358–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frach T, Prescher G, Degenhardt C, de Gruyter R, Schmitz A, Ballizany R. The digital silicon photomultiplier — principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), Orlando, FL. 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2009.5402143.
  8. 8.
    Cheng G, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, Alavi A. When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:779–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chin BB, Green ED, Turkington TG, Hawk TC, Coleman RE. Increasing uptake time in FDG-PET: standardized uptake values in normal tissues at 1 versus 3 h. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:118–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oprea-Lager DE, Vincent AD, van Moorselaar RJ, Gerritsen WR, van den Eertwegh AJ, Eriksson J, et al. Dual-phase PET-CT to differentiate [18F]Fluoromethylcholine uptake in reactive and malignant lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48430.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Stoiber F, et al. 18F choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology. 2010;254:925–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwee SA, Wei H, Sesterhenn I, Yun D, Coel MN. Localization of primary prostate cancer with dual-phase 18F-fluorocholine PET. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:262–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, Canzonieri V, Garbeglio A, Baresic T, et al. [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:1387–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tong AK, Zhang ZX, Zaheer S, Yan XS. Dual-phase (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT to detect locoregional recurrence of prostate cancer: comparison between each time point of imaging and a summation scan. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:486–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, Akers SR. Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:345–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:424–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Armstrong IS, Kelly MD, Williams HA, Matthews JC. Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies. EJNMMI Phys. 2014;1:99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharifpour R, Ghafarian P, Bakhshayesh-Karam M, Jamaati H, Ay MR. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function for respiratory artifact reduction in PET/CT imaging: focus on standardized uptake value. Tanaffos. 2017;16:127–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diego Alfonso López-Mora
    • 1
  • Albert Flotats
    • 1
  • Gabriela Paillahueque
    • 2
  • Valle Camacho
    • 1
  • Joan Duch
    • 1
  • Alejandro Fernández
    • 1
  • Anna Domènech
    • 1
  • Montserrat Estorch
    • 1
  • Ignasi Carrió
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Sant PauAutonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital ClínicoUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations