TY - JOUR T1 - NEMA NU 2-2012 performance measurements of the new GE digital Discovery MI & analog MI-DR PET/CT systems JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO - J Nucl Med SP - 194 LP - 194 VL - 60 IS - supplement 1 AU - Alexandre Chicheportiche AU - Rami Marciano AU - Marina Orevi Y1 - 2019/05/01 UR - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/60/supplement_1/194.abstract N2 - 194Objectives: Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) scanners have proven their role as multimodality medical imaging tools, and are now integrated into routine medical practice. General Electric (GE) Healthcare recently launched the new digital Discovery MI (DMI) and analog Discovery MI-Digital Ready (DMI-DR) whole body Time-of-Flight (TOF) PET systems. Discovery MI is the latest generation of PET/CT scanners commercialized and the first digital PET/CT system developed by the company. The DMI-DR is ready to receive the digital detectors of the DMI. In 2018, Hadassah Medical Center received and installed these two systems. This work compares the physical performance of the digital Discovery MI (DMI) and analog Discovery MI-DR (DMI-DR) PET/CT systems at one clinical site, and DMI at two other sites. Methods: Physical performance was assessed according to NEMA NU 2-2012 standards and manufacturer guidelines, using vendor-integrated software. Performance measures included spatial resolution, image quality, scatter fraction and count rate performance, and sensitivity. Published DMI performance studies from other centers were reviewed and compared. Results: DMI spatial resolution at 1 cm radial-offset in the radial, tangential and axial positions was 4.62, 4.18 and 4.57 mm, respectively; for the system, DMI-DR spatial resolution was 4.58, 3.32, 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 (sphere-to-background ratio=4:1) were 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 with both systems. Image quality results obtained using different image reconstruction algorithms will be presented during the conference. Conclusions: Performance measures were higher for the DMI than the digital-ready DMI-DR system. The best advantages of the DMI vs DMI-DR are sensitivity and count rate performance, allowing a better image signal-to-noise Ratio (SNR) with same acquisition times or similar SNR with lower acquisition times or injected activity. ER -