Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 447–453 | Cite as

Sparse Detector Configuration in SiPM Digital Photon Counting PET: a Feasibility Study

  • Jun Zhang
  • Michelle I. Knopp
  • Michael V. KnoppEmail author
Brief Article



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 words

Digital 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.

Financial Disclosure

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.


  1. 1.
    Schaart DR, van Dam HT, Seifert S, Vinke R, Dendooven P, Löhner H, Beekman FJ (2009) A novel, SiPM-array-based, monolithic scintillator detector for PET. Phys Med Biol 54:3501–3512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Hsu DFC, Ilan E, Peterson WT, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin CS (2017) Studies of a next generation silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 58(9):1511–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang X, Wang X, Ren N, Kuang Z, Deng X, Fu X, Wu S, Sang Z, Hu Z, Liang D, Liu X, Zheng H, Yang Y (2017) Performance of a SiPM based semi-monolithic scintillator PET detector. Phys Med Biol 62:7889–7904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E et al (2016) Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys 3:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Wright CL, Binzel K, Zhang J, Wuthrick EJ, Knopp MV (2017) Clinical feasibility of 90Y digital PET/CT for imaging microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1194–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: the application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 58:1182–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bian J, Siewerdsen JH, Han X et al (2010) Evaluation of sparse-view reconstruction from flat-panel-detector cone-beam CT. Phys Med Biol 21(55):6575–6599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalke M, Siltanen S (2014) Sinogram interpolation method for sparse-angle tomography. Appl Math 5:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee E, Werner ME, Karp JS, Surti S (2013) Design optimization of a time-of-flight, breast PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 60:1645–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valiollahzadeh S, Clark JW Jr, Mawlawi O (2015) Using compressive sensing to recover images from PET scanners with partial detector rings. Med Phys 42:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tashima H, Yoshida E, Inadama N, Nishikido F, Nakajima Y, Wakizaka H, Shinaji T, Nitta M, Kinouchi S, Suga M, Haneishi H, Inaniwa T, Yamaya T (2016) Development of a small single-ring OpenPET prototype with a novel transformable architecture. Phys Med Biol 61:1795–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang Z, Ye J, Chen B, Perkins AE, Rose S, Sidky EY, Kao CM, Xia D, Tung CH, Pan X (2016) Investigation of optimization-based reconstruction with an image-total-variation constraint in PET. Phys Med Biol 61:6055–6084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Budinger TF (1998) PET instrumentation: what are the limits? Semin Nucl Med 28:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ (1990) Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 37:783–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of RadiologyThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations