Sparse Detector Configuration in SiPM Digital Photon Counting PET: a Feasibility Study
- 178 Downloads
To investigate the minimum number of SiPM detectors required for solid-state digital photon counting (DPC) oncologic whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/X-ray computed tomography (CT).
A DPC PET/CT (Vereos, Philips) with 23,040 1-to-1 crystal-to-detector couplings was utilized. [18F]FDG PET/CT of a uniformity phantom and 10 oncology patients selected by block randomization from a large clinical trial were included (457 ± 38 MBq, 64 ± 22 min p.i, body mass index (BMI) of 14–41). Sparse-ring PET configurations with 50 % detector reduction in tangential and axial directions were analyzed and compared to the current full ring configuration. Resulting images were reviewed blindly and quantitatively over detectable lesions and the liver.
One hundred twelve lesions (d = 10 to 95 mm) were analyzed in the patient population. All lesions remained visible and were demonstrated without compromised image quality under all BMIs in the 50 % sparse detector configurations despite the DPC PET system sensitivity reduction to 1/4th. An excellent consistency of SUVmax measurements of lesions with an average of 5 % SUVmax difference was found between dPET of full and sparse configurations.
The feasibility of either expanding the axial field of view (FOV) by a factor of two or halving the number of detectors was demonstrated for solid-state digital photon counting PET, thus either potentially enabling cost reduction or extended effective axial FOV without increased cost.
Key wordsDigital photon counting Sparse-ring PET Silicon photomultiplier Solid state 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose Whole-body PET
Dr. Bin Zhang (Philips) provided technical support.
The study is supported by the ODSA grant TECH 13-060. Philips provided the pre-commercial release system.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the institutional review board approval. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Zhang J, Miller M, Binzel K, Tung C, Knopp MV (2016) Evaluation of the stability and system characteristics of digital photon counting PET/CT. J Nucl Med 57(Suppl 2):258Google Scholar
- 5.Zhang J, Maniawski P, Knopp MV (2017) Effect of next generation SiPM digital photon counting PET technology on effective system spatial resolution. J Nucl Med 58(Suppl 1):1322Google Scholar
- 7.Knopp MV, Binzel K, Nagar V et al (2015) Initial clinical experience using a digital PET detector for whole-body oncologic PET/CT. J Nucl Med 56(Suppl 3):1695Google Scholar
- 16.Son JW, Kim KY, Yoon HS, et al (2017) Proof-of-concept prototype time-of-flight PET system based on high-quantum-efficiency multi-anode PMTs. Med Phys. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12440
- 17.Saha GB (2010) Performance characteristics of PET scanners. In: Basics of PET imaging: physics, chemistry, and regulations. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 101–102Google Scholar
- 19.Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME (2012) Positron emission tomography. In: Physics in Nuclear Medicine, 4th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences, New York, pp 319–321Google Scholar