Reducing scan time using time-of-flight protocol in clinical [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging: A feasibility study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 PET/CT and Cyclotron Center, Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Department of Functional Imaging, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada

6 Departments of Radiology and Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

7 Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada

10.22034/irjnm.2022.40031

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluates scan time reduction using time-of-flight (TOF) PET, when quantitative parameters including volumetric measures are considered.
Methods: 32 patients were included in the study. The reconstruction parameters for TOF were 2 iterations, 18 and 24 subsets, and for non-TOF was 3 iterations and 18 subsets. A post smoothing filter with FWHM of 5.4 mm and 6.4 mm were used for TOF and 6.4 mm for non-TOF. TOF reconstruction was performed with 2, 2.5 and 3 min/bed position, and 3 min/bed position scan time was applied in non-TOF. Quantitative parameters such as coefficient of variation (COV), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), lesion-to-background ratio (LBR), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were utilized. Standard uptake value (SUV) was also measured. Different segmentation thresholds were studied.
Results: Improvement in SNR for TOF relative to non-TOF was observed when utilizing 18 subsets, 5.4 mm filter size with 3 min scan time/bed position (P-value<0.0001), and for 18 subsets, 6.4 mm filter size when 2.5- and 3-min scan time/bed positions was applied (P-value≤0.02). Scan time reduction did not illustrate significant variation for the SUVs and lesion size. In all TOF protocols for both TLG and MTV, the measured values decreased with increasing segmentation thresholds, as expected, with significantly more impact for higher thresholds (70%, 75%). Meanwhile, higher values were observed for higher post smoothing filter in each specified threshold. With increasing of the threshold, ΔTLG was increased with more impact for higher post smoothing filter. ΔMTV were -10.10±11.09 (-1.35±8.59) and 0.68±17.51 (12.42±18.90) in 2 min/bed position with 5.4 (6.4 mm post smoothing filter) for threshold of 45% and 75% respectively.
Conclusion: Scan time reduction from 3 to 2 min can be obtained with TOF in comparison with non-TOF, especially when higher segmentation threshold values with higher subset number (24) and 6.4 mm filters are utilized.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013 Jun;40(6):064301.
  2. Ahangari S, Ghafarian P, Shekari M, Ghadiri H, Bakhshayeshkaram M, Ay MR. The impact of point spread function modeling on scan duration in PET imaging. Front biomed technol. 2015 Sep 30;2(3):137-45.
  3. Zeraatkar N, Ay MR, Ghafarian P, Sarkar S, Geramifar P, Rahmim A. Monte Carlo-based evaluation of inter-crystal scatter and penetration in the PET subsystem of three GE Discovery PET/CT scanners. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011 Dec 11;659(1):508-14.
  4. 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 Mar 7;55(5):1453-73.
  5. Hosseini SA, Shiri I, Hajianfar G, Bahadorzadeh B, Ghafarian P, Zaidi H, Ay MR. Synergistic impact of motion and acquisition/reconstruction parameters on 18 F-FDG PET radiomic features in non-small cell lung cancer: Phantom and clinical studies. Med Phys. 2022 Jun;49(6):3783-3796.
  6. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):462-70.
  7. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009 Aug;50(8):1315-23.
  8. Shekari M, Ghafarian P, Ahangari S, Ay MR. Quantification of the impact of TOF and PSF on PET images using the noise-matching concept: clinical and phantom study. Nucl Sci Tech. 2017 Nov;28(11):1-8.
  9. Sharifpour R, Ghafarian P, Rahmim A, Ay MR. Quantification and reduction of respiratory induced artifacts in positron emission tomography/computed tomography using the time-of-flight technique. Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Nov;38(11):948-955.
  10. Hemmati H, Kamali-Asl A, Ay M, Ghafarian P. Compton scatter tomography in TOF-PET. Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 12;62(19):7641-7658.
  11. Surti S, Karp JS. Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jan 21;54(2):373-84. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/2/013. Epub 2008 Dec 19. Erratum in: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Feb 21;54(4):1087.
  12. Schaefferkoetter J, Casey M, Townsend D, El Fakhri G. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol. 2013 Mar 7;58(5):1465-78.
  13. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Jun;38(6):1147-57.
  14. Shekari M, Ghafarian P, Ahangari S, Ghadiri H, Bakhshayeshkaram M, Ay MR. Optimizing image reconstruction parameters in time of flight PET/CT imaging: a phantom study. Front biomed technol. 2015 Sep 30;2(3):146-54.
  15. Moon SH, Choi JY, Lee HJ, Son YI, Baek CH, Ahn YC, Park K, Lee KH, Kim BT. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil: comparisons of volume-based metabolic parameters. Head Neck. 2013 Jan;35(1):15-22.
  16. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S.
  17. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008 Nov;49(11):1804-8.
  18. Ketabi A, Ghafarian P, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Mahdavi SR, Ay MR. The influence of using different reconstruction algorithms on sensitivity of quantitative 18F-FDG-PET volumetric measures to background activity variation. Iran J Nucl Med. 2018;26(2):87-97.
  19. Ketabi A, Ghafarian P, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Mahdavi SR, Rahmim A, Ay MR. Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors. Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):2146-2156.
  20. Paidpally V, Chirindel A, Chung CH, Richmon J, Koch W, Quon H, Subramaniam RM. FDG volumetric parameters and survival outcomes after definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Aug;203(2):W139-45.
  21. Ryu IS, Kim JS, Roh JL, Cho KJ, Choi SH, Nam SY, Kim SY. Prognostic significance of preoperative metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis measured by (18)F-FDG PET/CT in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Mar;41(3):452-61.
  22. Teimourian B, Ay MR, Zafarghandi MS, Ghafarian P, Ghadiri H, Zaidi H. A novel energy mapping approach for CT-based attenuation correction in PET. Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):2078-89.
  23. Sridhar P, Mercier G, Tan J, Truong MT, Daly B, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET metabolic tumor volume segmentation and pathologic volume of primary human solid tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 May;202(5):1114-9.
  24. Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Nov;37(11):2165-87.
  25. Rogasch JM, Hofheinz F, Lougovski A, Furth C, Ruf J, Großer OS, Mohnike K, Hass P, Walke M, Amthauer H, Steffen IG. The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction. EJNMMI Phys. 2014 Dec;1(1):12.
  26. Knudtsen IS, van Elmpt W, Ollers M, Malinen E. Impact of PET reconstruction algorithm and threshold on dose painting of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2014 Nov;113(2):210-4.
  27. Rezaei S, Ghafarian P, Jha AK, Rahmim A, Sarkar S, Ay MR. Joint compensation of motion and partial volume effects by iterative deconvolution incorporating wavelet-based denoising in oncologic PET/CT imaging. Phys Med. 2019 Dec;68:52-60.
  28. Rezaei S, Ghafarian P, Bakhshayesh-Karam M, Uribe CF, Rahmim A, Sarkar S, Ay MR. The impact of iterative reconstruction protocol, signal-to-background ratio and background activity on measurement of PET spatial resolution. Jpn J Radiol. 2020 Mar;38(3):231-239.
  29. Albano D, Re A, Tucci A, Giubbini R, Bertagna F. Prognostic role of ΔMTV and ΔTLG in Burkitt lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;33(4):280-287.
  30. Øen SK, Aasheim LB, Eikenes L, Karlberg AM. Image quality and detectability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems-a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Aug 5;6(1):16.
  31. Sharma A, Mohan A, Bhalla AS, Sharma MC, Vishnubhatla S, Das CJ, Pandey AK, Sekhar Bal C, Patel CD, Sharma P, Agarwal KK, Kumar R. Role of various metabolic parameters derived from baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT as prognostic markers in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;43(1):e8-e17.
  32. Gencturk M, Ozturk K, Koksel Y, Li F, Cayci Z. Pretreatment quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as a predictor of survival in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary glands. Clin Imaging. 2019 Jan-Feb;53:17-24.
  33. Ye S, Liu S, Zhou S, Xiang L, Wu X, Yang H. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT-based quantitative metabolic parameters in patients with ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Cancer Biomark. 2020;27(2):189-194.
  34. Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, Peñuelas I, Richter JÁ, Martí-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013 Feb;38(2):103-9.
  35. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jan;83(1):226-30.
  36. Sharifpour R, Ghafarian P, Bakhshayesh-Karam M, Jamaati H, Ay MR. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function for respiratory artifact reduction in PET/CT imaging: focus on standardized uptake value. Tanaffos. 2017;16(2):127-135.
  37. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, Verzijlbergen FJ, Barrington SF, Pike LC, Weber WA, Stroobants S, Delbeke D, Donohoe KJ, Holbrook S, Graham MM, Testanera G, Hoekstra OS, Zijlstra J, Visser E, Hoekstra CJ, Pruim J, Willemsen A, Arends B, Kotzerke J, Bockisch A, Beyer T, Chiti A, Krause BJ. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54.
  38. Ghafarian P, Ay MR, Fard-Esfahani A, Rahmim A, Zaidi H. Quantification of PET and CT misalignment errors due to bulk motion in cardiac PET/CT imaging: phantom and clinical and studies. Front biomed technol. 2014;1(3):159-67.
  39. Ghafarian P, Ay MR. The influence of PET and CT misalignment due to respiratory motion on the cardiac PET/CT imaging: a simulation study. Front biomed technol. 2014 Dec 30;1(4):252-7.
  40. Bettinardi V, Picchio M, Di Muzio N, Gilardi MC. Motion management in positron emission tomography/computed tomography for radiation treatment planning. Semin Nucl Med. 2012 Sep;42(5):289-307.
  41. Nakajo M, Jinguji M, Shinaji T, Tani A, Nakabeppu Y, Nakajo M, Nakajo A, Natsugoe S, Yoshiura T. 18F-FDG-PET/CT features of primary tumours for predicting the risk of recurrence in thyroid cancer after total thyroidectomy: potential usefulness of combination of the SUV-related, volumetric, and heterogeneous texture parameters. Br J Radiol. 2019 Feb;92(1094):20180620.
  42. Sadick M, Molina F, Frey S, Piniol R, Sadick H, Brade J, Fink C, Schoenberg SO, He Y. Effect of reconstruction parameters in high-definition PET/CT on assessment of lymph node metastases in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013 Mar;41(1):19-25.
  43. Ferretti A, Bellan E, Gava M, Chondrogiannis S, Massaro A, Nibale O, Rubello D. Phantom study of the impact of reconstruction parameters on the detection of mini- and micro-volume lesions with a low-dose PET/CT acquisition protocol. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Nov;81(11):3363-70.
  44. Sheikhbahaei S, Marcus C, Wray R, Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Subramaniam RM. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Mar;37(3):288-96.
  45. Delso G, Khalighi M, Ter Voert E, Barbosa F, Sekine T, Hüllner M, Veit-Haibach P. Effect of time-of-flight information on PET/MR reconstruction artifacts: comparison of free-breathing versus bBreath-hold MR-based attenuation correction. Radiology. 2017 Jan;282(1):229-235.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics