Benefits of point-spread function and time of flight for PET/CT image quality in relation to the body mass index and injected dose

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 407-412

  Akamatsu, Go ^a   Mitsumoto, Katsuhiko ^a   Ishikawa, Kaori ^a   Taniguchi, Takafumi ^a   Ohya, Nobuyoshi ^b   Baba, Shingo ^a   Abe, Koichiro ^a   Sasaki, Masayuki ^a  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KYUSHU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

BMI; Image quality; Injected dose; Point spread function; Time of flight

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER; MALE; PET SCANNER; PHANTOM; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOACTIVITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; BODY MASS INDEX; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; INJECTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84877628357     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31828da3bd     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231:305-332.
2. Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Hoøjgaard L. Positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a systematic, quantitative review. Lancet Oncol. 2001;2:659-666.
3. Baba S, Abe K, Isoda T, et al. Impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:701-716.
4. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983-995.
5. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369-1379.
6. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of nonYsmall-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500-2507.
7. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:797-801.
8. Tatsumi M, Clark PA, Nakamoto Y, et al. Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:40-45.
9. Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, et al. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole-body PETusing an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1615-1619.
10. El Fakhri G, Santos PA, Badawi RD, et al. Impact of acquisition geometry, image processing, and patient size on lesion detection in whole-body 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1951-1960.
11. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:603-607.
12. Ducharme J, Goertzen AL, Patterson J, et al. Practical aspects of 18F-FDG from a distant supplier. J Nucl Med Technol. 2009;37:164-169.
13. Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, et al. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:844-848.
14. Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, et al. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907-921.
15. Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938-949.
16. Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237-245.
17. Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:1453-1473.
18. Varrone A, Sjoholm N, Eriksson L, et al. Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1639-1650.
19. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, et al. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1315-1323.
20. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462-470.
21. Surti S, Scheuermann J, El Fakhri G, et al. Impact of time-of-flight PET on whole-body oncologic studies: a human observer lesion detection and localization study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:712-719.
22. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1147-1157.
23. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, et al. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:347-353.
24. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, et al. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394-5411.
25. Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, et al. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375-2389.
26. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of the point-spread-function and time-of-flight in relation to the reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1716-1722.
27. Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of version 1.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:325-334.
28. Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, et al. Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:784-788.
29. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885-895.
30. Dobbeleir A, Ham H, Goethals I, et al. A simple test to determine the quality of your clinical PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:751-757.
31. Visvikis D, Griffiths D, Costa DC, et al. Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using dedicated BGO PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1050-1056.
32. Nagaki A, Onoguchi M, Matsutomo N. Patient weight-based acquisition protocols to optimize 18F-FDG PET/CT image quality. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011; 39:72-76.