Design and performance evaluation of partial geometry configurations of total-body PET: A Monte Carlo study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

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

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

3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

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

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

Abstract

Introduction: This study proposes various designs of partial-ring geometry total-body positron emission tomography (PET) scanners which maintain an extended axial field of view (AFOV) while remaining cost-effective, without sacrificing image quality.
Methods: The total-body uEXPLORER PET scanner was simulated using the GATE Monte Carlo code.  Partial-ring PET configurations were simulated, reducing the number of detectors by 25% in both the transaxial and axial directions. The sensitivity, noise equivalent count rate (NECR), and image quality of the partial-ring configurations were compared to those of the full-ring configuration.
Results: The system sensitivity of partial-ring designs was 0.61 and 0.77 times that of the full-ring detector PET for detector reduction in the axial and transaxial directions, respectively. Notably, despite the higher sensitivity, the 10 mm sphere could not be detected in the transaxial reduction mode. When considering all spheres except the 10 mm one, the mean relative error of contrast recovery (CR) for the same time duration was 2% for detector reduction in the axial direction, whereas it increased to 9% for reduction in the transaxial direction.
Conclusion: The results show that reducing the number of detectors in total-body PET scanners can significantly lower manufacturing costs associated with long AFOV PET systems. Although the reduced detector configuration resulted in lower sensitivity, the image quality of the NEMA phantom was found to be superior in the axial reduction mode compared to the transaxial reduction mode. Additionally, the image quality exhibited only a slight difference from that of the full-ring scanner.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Kitson SL, Vincenzo C, Andrea C, Diana S, Luigi M. Clinical applications of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in medicine: oncology, brain diseases and cardiology. Curr Radiopharm. 2009 Oct 1;2(4):224-53.
  2. Ahmed I, Devulapally P. Nuclear medicine PET scan cardiovascular assessment, protocols, and interpretation. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
  3. Sheikhzadeh P, Ghadiri H, Geramifar P, Ghafarian P, Ay MR. Design and performance evaluation of spheroid geometry for brain PET scanner using Monte Carlo modeling. Iran J Nucl Med. 2019;27(1):32-38.
  4. Zhang X, Zhou J, Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Qi J. Quantitative image reconstruction for total-body PET imaging using the 2-meter long EXPLORER scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2017 Mar 21;62(6):2465-85.
  5. Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, Qi J, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Total-Body PET: Maximizing Sensitivity to Create New Opportunities for Clinical Research and Patient Care. J Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;59(1):3-12.
  6. Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS, Moses WW, Price P, Jones T. Total-body imaging: Transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Transl Med. 2017 Mar 15;9(381):eaaf6169.
  7. Zhang X, Xie Z, Berg E, Judenhofer MS, Liu W, Xu T, Ding Y, Lv Y, Dong Y, Deng Z, Tang S, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Bao J, Li H, Zhou J, Wang G, Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Qi J. Total-Body Dynamic Reconstruction and Parametric Imaging on the uEXPLORER. J Nucl Med. 2020 Feb;61(2):285-91.
  8. Poon JK, Dahlbom ML, Moses WW, Balakrishnan K, Wang W, Cherry SR, Badawi RD. Optimal whole-body PET scanner configurations for different volumes of LSO scintillator: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jul 7;57(13):4077-94.
  9. Vandenberghe S, Moskal P, Karp JS. State of the art in total body PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2020 May 25;7(1):35.
  10. Abstracts of the total body PET conference 2018: Ghent, Belgium. 30 June - 2 July 2018. EJNMMI Phys. 2018 Jun 29;5(Suppl 1):19.
  11. Karp JS, Viswanath V, Geagan MJ, Muehllehner G, Pantel AR, Parma MJ, Perkins AE, Schmall JP, Werner ME, Daube-Witherspoon ME. PennPET Explorer: design and preliminary performance of a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;61(1):136-43.
  12. Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Xu T, Price PM, Ding Y, Spencer BA, Nardo L, Liu W, Bao J, Jones T, Li H, Cherry SR. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019 Mar;60(3):299-303.
  13. Surti S, Werner ME, Karp JS. Study of PET scanner designs using clinical metrics to optimize the scanner axial FOV and crystal thickness. Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jun 21;58(12):3995-4012.
  14. Moskal P, Salabura P, Silarski M, Smyrski J, Zdebik J, Zieliński M. Novel detector systems for the positron emission tomography. Bio Algoritms Med Syst. 2011 Jun;7(2):73-8.
  15. Valiollahzadeh S, Clark JW Jr, Mawlawi O. Using compressive sensing to recover images from PET scanners with partial detector rings. Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):121-33.
  16. Zein SA, Karakatsanis NA, Issa M, Haj-Ali AA, Nehmeh SA. Physical performance of a long axial field-of-view PET scanner prototype with sparse rings configuration: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Med Phys. 2020 Apr;47(4):1949-57.
  17. Yamaya T, Inaniwa T, Minohara S, Yoshida E, Inadama N, Nishikido F, Shibuya K, Lam CF, Murayama H. A proposal of an open PET geometry. Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 7;53(3):757-73.
  18. Zhang J, Knopp MI, Knopp MV. Sparse Detector Configuration in SiPM Digital Photon Counting PET: a Feasibility Study. Mol Imaging Biol. 2019 Jun;21(3):447-53.
  19. Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, Omidvari N, Leung EK, Abdelhafez YG, Tang S, Deng Z, Dong Y, Lv Y, Bao J, Liu W, Li H, Jones T, Badawi RD, Cherry SR. Performance Evaluation of the uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT Scanner Based on NEMA NU 2-2018 with Additional Tests to Characterize PET Scanners with a Long Axial Field of View. J Nucl Med. 2021 Jun 1;62(6):861-70.
  20. Lv Y, Lv X, Liu W, Judenhofer MS, Zwingenberger A, Wisner E, Berg E, McKenney S, Leung E, Spencer BA, Cherry SR, Badawi RD. Mini EXPLORER II: a prototype high-sensitivity PET/CT scanner for companion animal whole body and human brain scanning. Phys Med Biol. 2019 Mar 21;64(7):075004.
  21. Rezaei H, Sheikhzadeh P, Ghafarian P, Zaidi H, Ay MR. Accurate modeling and performance evaluation of a total-body pet scanner using Monte Carlo simulations. Med Phys. 2023 Nov;50(11):6815-27.
  22. Salvadori J, Odille F, Verger A, Olivier P, Karcher G, Marie PY, Imbert L. Head-to-head comparison between digital and analog PET of human and phantom images when optimized for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from small lesions. EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Feb 21;7(1):11.
  23. Merlin T, Stute S, Benoit D, Bert J, Carlier T, Comtat C, Filipovic M, Lamare F, Visvikis D. CASToR: a generic data organization and processing code framework for multi-modal and multi-dimensional tomographic reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2018 Sep 10;63(18):185005.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics