Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Defective PET Detectors in Clinical Simultaneous [18F]FDG Time-of-Flight PET/MR Imaging

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of defective positron emission tomography (PET) detectors on clinical PET image quality in simultaneous PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF reconstructed images.

Procedures

A total of six patients with various malignant tumors were included and underwent a 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose PET scan in a fully functional simultaneous TOF PET/MRI. TOF and non-TOF PET images were reconstructed before and after simulating defective detector units. All images were clinically assessed and scored. In addition, a quantitative assessment was performed. Differences were ascertained and compared using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test.

Results

Without TOF, the image artifacts introduced by one defective detector unit already started to degrade the overall image quality. It reduced the confidence and could lead to a change in diagnosis. Simulating three or five defective detector units resulted in more artifacts and further reduced overall image quality and confidence. By including TOF information, the effects were mitigated: Images reconstructed with one defective detector unit had similar scores as the ones without defective units. The average absolute percentage error for one, three, and five defective detector units were respectively 8, 20, and 37 % for the non-TOF cases and only 5, 11, and 19 % for the TOF cases.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that PET image artifacts due to (simulated) defective detectors are significantly mitigated with the integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. One defective detector unit introduces, on average, a 5 % absolute percentage error. However, in TOF imaging, even in cases with one or three defective units for head and neck imaging and one defective unit for chest and abdominal imaging, overall image quality, artifact scoring, and reader confidence are not significantly degraded.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchert R, Bohuslavizki KH, Mester J, Clausen M (1999) Quality assurance in PET: evaluation of the clinical relevance of detector defects. J. Nucl. Med. 40:1657–1665

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elhami E, Samiee M, Demeter S et al (2011) On the significance of defective block detectors in clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Mol. Imaging Biol. 13:265–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zito F, De Bernardi E, Schiavini M et al (2007) Analysis of different detector and electronics defects on F18-FDG images. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 571:493–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boellaard R, Quick HH (2015) Current image acquisition options in PET/MR. Semin. Nucl. Med. 45:192–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Delso G, Ter Voert E, Veit-Haibach P (2015) How does PET/MR work? Basic physics for physicians. Abdom. Imaging 40:1352–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B et al (2011) Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J. Nucl. Med. 52:1914–1922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaidi H, Del Guerra A (2011) An outlook on future design of hybrid PET/MRI systems. Med. Phys. 38:5667–5689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Levin C, Glover G, Deller T et al (2013) Prototype time-of-flight PET ring integrated with a 3 T MRI system for simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med Meeting Abstracts 54:148

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haemisch Y, Frach T, Degenhardt C, Thon A (2012) Fully digital arrays of silicon photomultipliers (dSiPM)—a scalable alternative to vacuum photomultiplier tubes (PMT). Phys. Procedia 37:1546–1560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moses WW (2003) Time of flight in PET revisited. Nuclear Science, IEEE Transactions on 50:1325–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moses WW (2007) Recent advances and future advances in time-of-flight PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 580:919–924

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Surti S (2015) Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J. Nucl. Med. 56:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G (2008) Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J. Nucl. Med. 49:462–470

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME et al (2007) Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J. Nucl. Med. 48:471–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Daube-Witherspoon ME, Surti S, Perkins AE, Karp JS (2014) Determination of accuracy and precision of lesion uptake measurements in human subjects with time-of-flight PET. J. Nucl. Med. 55:602–607

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM et al (2011) Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J. Nucl. Med. 52:347–353

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Surti S, Karp JS (2009) Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys. Med. Biol. 54:373–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Conti M (2011) Why is TOF PET reconstruction a more robust method in the presence of inconsistent data? Phys. Med. Biol. 56:155–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boellaard R, Hofman MB, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA (2014) Accurate PET/MR quantification using time of flight MLAA image reconstruction. Mol. Imaging Biol. 16:469–477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Davison H, ter Voert EE, de Galiza BF, Veit-Haibach P, Delso G (2015) Incorporation of time-of-flight information reduces metal artifacts in simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a simulation study. Investig. Radiol. 50:423–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehranian A, Zaidi H (2015) Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction. J. Nucl. Med. 56:635–641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rua Q, Manjeshwar RM, Ambwani S, Wollenweber SD (2012) Truncation completion of MR-based PET attenuation maps using time-of-flight non-attenuation-corrected PET images [abstract]. 2773-2775P.

  23. ter Voert E, Delso G, Ahn S, et al. (2014) The effect of TOF on PET reconstructions in patients with (metal) implants in simultaneous TOF PET/MR scanning [abstract]. SSK18-06P.

  24. Turkington TG, Wilson JM (2009) Attenuation artifacts and time-of-flight PET [abstract]. 2997-2999P.

  25. de Galiza Barbosa F, Delso G, Zeimpekis KG, et al. (2015) Evaluation and clinical quantification of neoplastic lesions and physiological structures in TOF-PET/MRI and non-TOF/MRI—a pilot study. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vontobel J, Liga R, Possner M et al (2015) MR-based attenuation correction for cardiac FDG PET on a hybrid PET/MRI scanner: comparison with standard CT attenuation correction. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42:1574–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Delso G, Khalighi M, Ter Voert E et al (2016) Effect of time-of-flight information on PET/MR reconstruction artifacts: comparison of free-breathing versus breath-hold MR-based attenuation correction. Radiology:152509

  28. Surti S, Karp JS (2008) Design considerations for a limited angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner. Phys. Med. Biol. 53:2911–2921

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A et al (2015) 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. 56:1378–1385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wollenweber SD, Ambwani S, Lonn AHR et al (2013) Comparison of 4-class and continuous fat/water methods for whole-body, MR-based PET attenuation correction. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 60:3391–3398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wollenweber SD, Ambwani S, Delso G et al (2013) Evaluation of an atlas-based PET head attenuation correction using PET/CT & MR patient data. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 60:3383–3390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Surti S, Karp JS, Popescu LM, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Werner M (2006) Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 25:529–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert, Felipe de Galiza Barbosa, Martin Huellner & Patrick Veit-Haibach

  2. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert, Felipe de Galiza Barbosa, Martin Huellner & Patrick Veit-Haibach

  3. GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA

    Gaspar Delso

  4. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Martin Huellner

  5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Patrick Veit-Haibach

Authors
  1. Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaspar Delso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felipe de Galiza Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Huellner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Veit-Haibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edwin E. G. W. ter Voert.

Ethics declarations

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.

Conflict of Interest

Patrick Veit-Haibach received investigator-initiated study grants from Bayer Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, and Roche Pharmaceuticals and speaker fees from GE Healthcare. G. Delso is an employee of GE Healthcare. The remaining authors declare having no conflict of interest.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 499 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

ter Voert, E.E., Delso, G., de Galiza Barbosa, F. et al. The Effect of Defective PET Detectors in Clinical Simultaneous [18F]FDG Time-of-Flight PET/MR Imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 19, 626–635 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-1023-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-1023-0

Key words

Search

Navigation