Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherClinical Investigations (Human)

Performance of digital PET compared to high-resolution conventional PET in patients with cancer

Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn A van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H Slump, Siert Knollema and Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine February 2020, jnumed.119.238105; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.238105
Daniëlle Koopman
1 Isala, department of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniëlle Koopman
Jorn A van Dalen
2 Isala, department of Medical Physics, Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henk Stevens
3 Isala, department of nuclear medicine, Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cornelis H Slump
4 Technical Medicine Centre, University of Twente, Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siert Knollema
3 Isala, department of nuclear medicine, Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pieter L. Jager
5 Isala, departmentof nuclear medicine, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Recently introduced PET systems using silicon photomultipliers with digital readout (dPET) have an improved timing and spatial resolution, aiming at a better image quality, over conventional PET (cPET) systems. We prospectively evaluated the performance of a dPET system in patients with cancer, as compared to high-resolution (HR) cPET imaging. Methods: After a single FDG-injection, 66 patients underwent dPET (Vereos, Philips Healthcare) and cPET (Ingenuity TF, Philips Healthcare) imaging in a randomized order. We used HR-reconstructions (2x2x2 mm3 voxels) for both scanners and determined SUVmax, SUVmean, lesion-to-background ratio (LBR), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and lesion diameter in up to 5 FDG-positive lesions per patient. Furthermore, we counted the number of visible and measurable lesions on each PET scan. Two nuclear medicine specialists blindly determined the Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) score from both image sets in 30 patients referred for initial staging. For all 66 patients, these specialists separately and blindly evaluated image quality (4-point scale) and determined the scan preference. Results: We included 238 lesions that were visible and measurable on both PET scans. We found 37 additional lesions on dPET in 27 patients (41%), which were unmeasurable (n = 14) or invisible (n = 23) on cPET. SUVmean, SUVmax, LBR and MTV on cPET were 5.2±3.9 (mean±SD), 6.9±5.6, 5.0±3.6 and 2991±13251 mm3, respectively. On dPET SUVmean, SUVmax and LBR increased 24%, 23% and 27%, respectively (p<0.001) while MTV decreased 13% (p<0.001) compared to cPET. Visual analysis showed TNM upstaging with dPET in 13% of the patients (4/30). dPET images also scored higher in image quality (P = 0.003) and were visually preferred in the majority of cases (65%). Conclusion: Digital PET improved the detection of small lesions, upstaged the disease and images were visually preferred as compared to high-resolution conventional PET. More studies are necessary to confirm the superior diagnostic performance of digital PET.

  • Image Reconstruction
  • Instrumentation
  • Oncology: Lung
  • PET
  • Conventional PET
  • Digital PET
  • FDG-PET
  • cancer imaging
  • lesion detection
  • Copyright © 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 66 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 66, Issue 5
May 1, 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance of digital PET compared to high-resolution conventional PET in patients with cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Performance of digital PET compared to high-resolution conventional PET in patients with cancer
Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn A van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H Slump, Siert Knollema, Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2020, jnumed.119.238105; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.238105

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Performance of digital PET compared to high-resolution conventional PET in patients with cancer
Daniëlle Koopman, Jorn A van Dalen, Henk Stevens, Cornelis H Slump, Siert Knollema, Pieter L. Jager
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2020, jnumed.119.238105; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.238105
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reported Differences Between Digital and Analog PET/CT Studies
  • Added Value of Digital over Analog PET/CT: More Significant as Image Field of View and Body Mass Index Increase
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Clinical Investigations (Human)

  • The added value of 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer
Show more Clinical Investigations (Human)

Clinical (Oncology: Other)

  • CD8-Targeted PET Imaging of Tumor-Infiltrating T Cells in Patients with Cancer: A Phase I First-in-Humans Study of 89Zr-Df-IAB22M2C, a Radiolabeled Anti-CD8 Minibody
Show more Clinical (Oncology: Other)

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Image Reconstruction
  • instrumentation
  • Oncology: Lung
  • PET
  • Conventional PET
  • digital PET
  • FDG-PET
  • cancer imaging
  • Lesion detection
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire