Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems

• Published in: EJNMMI physics Vol. 7; no. 1; p. 4
• Main Authors: Chicheportiche, Alexandre, Marciano, Rami, Orevi, Marina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 14.01.2020; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Algorithms; Applied and Technical Physics; Computational Mathematics and Numerical Analysis; Discovery MI; Discovery MI-DR; Energy resolution; Engineering; Image acquisition; Image contrast; Image quality; Imaging; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; NEMA; Nuclear Medicine; Original Research; PET/CT; Photopeak; Physical performance; Radiology; Scattering; Sensitivity; Signal to noise ratio; Spatial resolution; Discovery MI-DR; Physical performance; PET/CT; Discovery MI; NEMA
• ISSN: 2197-7364; 2197-7364
• DOI: 10.1186/s40658-020-0271-x

Background This article compares the physical performance of the 4-ring digital Discovery MI (DMI) and PMT-based Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems. Physical performance was assessed according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standards. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image quality, scatter fraction and count rate performance, and sensitivity. Energy and timing resolutions were also measured. Published DMI and DMI-DR performance studies from other centers are reviewed and compared. Results 4-ring DMI spatial resolution at 1-cm radial offset in the radial, tangential and axial directions was 4.62, 4.18 and 4.57 mm, respectively, compared with the DMI-DR system values of 4.58, 4.52, and 5.31 mm. Measured sensitivity was 13.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 13.4 kcps/MBq 10 cm off-center for the SiPM-based DMI system. DMI-DR system sensitivity was 6.3 kcps/MBq at the center of the FOV and 6.8 kcps/MBq at 10 cm off-center. DMI measured noise equivalent count rate peak was 175.6 kcps at 20.1 kBq/ml; DMI-DR was 146.7 kcps at 31.7 kBq/ml. Scatter fraction was 40.5% and 36.6%, respectively. DMI image contrast recovery (CR) values ranged from 73.2% (10 mm sphere) to 91.0% (37 mm sphere); DMI-DR, values ranged from 68.4% to 91.4%. DMI background variability (BV) was 1.8%–6.5%; DMI-DR was 2.3%–9.1%. The Q.Clear algorithm improved image quality, increasing CR and decreasing BV in both systems. The photopeak energy resolution was 9.63% and 12.19% for DMI and DMI-DR, respectively. The time-of-flight (TOF) resolution was 377.26 ps and 552.71 ps, respectively. Compared with measurements in other centers, results were similar and showed an absolute mean relative deviation of 6% for DMI and 7% for DMI-DR overall performance results. Conclusions Performance measures were higher for the 4-ring DMI than the DMI-DR system. The biggest advantages of the 4-ring DMI vs DMI-DR are improved sensitivity and count rate performance. This should allow a better image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the same acquisition times or, similar SNR with lower acquisition times or injected activity. In its 3-ring configuration, the DMI showed worse performance results than the PMT-based system in terms of count rate scatter fraction and image quality (for similar axial FOV).