Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Procedures

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  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 54:3501–3512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):258

    Google Scholar 

  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):1511–1518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 62:7889–7904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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):1322

    Google Scholar 

  6. Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E et al (2016) Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys 3:3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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):1695

    Google Scholar 

  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 44:1194–1197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: the application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 58:1182–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):6575–6599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalke M, Siltanen S (2014) Sinogram interpolation method for sparse-angle tomography. Appl Math 5:423–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee E, Werner ME, Karp JS, Surti S (2013) Design optimization of a time-of-flight, breast PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 60:1645–1652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Valiollahzadeh S, Clark JW Jr, Mawlawi O (2015) Using compressive sensing to recover images from PET scanners with partial detector rings. Med Phys 42:121–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 61:1795–1809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 61:6055–6084

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 101–102

    Google Scholar 

  18. Budinger TF (1998) PET instrumentation: what are the limits? Semin Nucl Med 28:247–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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 319–321

    Google Scholar 

  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 37:783–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Avenue, Room 430, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Jun Zhang, Michelle I. Knopp & Michael V. Knopp

Authors
  1. Jun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle I. Knopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael V. Knopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael V. Knopp.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, J., Knopp, M.I. & Knopp, M.V. Sparse Detector Configuration in SiPM Digital Photon Counting PET: a Feasibility Study. Mol Imaging Biol 21, 447–453 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1250-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1250-7

Key words

Search

Navigation