RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Promising future: Comparable Imaging Capability of MRI compatible SiPM and Conventional Photo-sensor Based Preclinical PET Systems
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP jnumed.115.157677
DO 10.2967/jnumed.115.157677
A1 Aron Krisztian Krizsan
A1 Imre Lajtos
A1 Magnus Dahlbom
A1 Freddie Daver
A1 Miklos Emri
A1 Sandor Attila Kis
A1 Gabor Opposites
A1 Laszlo Pohubi
A1 Delfo Sanfilippo
A1 Norbert Potari
A1 Gyula Hegyesi
A1 Gabor Kalinka
A1 Janos Gal
A1 Jozsef Imrek
A1 Ferenc Nagy
A1 Ivan Valastyan
A1 Beata Kiraly
A1 Jozsef Molnar
A1 Laszlo Balkay
YR 2015
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/07/jnumed.115.157677.abstract
AB The MiniPET-3 presents a preclinical Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanner that includes state-of-the-art photo sensor technology called Silicon Photomultiplier (SiPM) providing a significant advantage for dual modality purposes with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). In this article, we propose the image capability comparison based on the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for two small animal imaging systems with the same crystal geometry but different photo sensors: SiPM for MiniPET-3 and the conventional Photomultiplier Tube (PMT) for MiniPET-2. Methods: The standard measurements proposed by the NEMA NU 4-2008 guideline were performed on both MiniPET systems. These measurements included the determination of spatial resolution, system sensitivity, energy resolution, count rate performance, scatter fraction, spill-over-ratio (SOR) for air and water, recovery coefficients (RC) and image uniformity. For the MiniPET-2 and MiniPET-3 scanners the energy windows of 350-650 keV and 360-662 keV were used respectively. Results: Spatial resolution values were found to be about 17% lower on average for the MiniPET-3 system compared to the MiniPET-2. The two scanners showed similar performance in terms of peak absolute sensitivity (~1.37%) as well as in RC. The SOR air values were 0.14 and 0.27, while the SOR water values were 0.25 and 0.34 for the MiniPET-2 and MiniPET-3 respectively. Uniformity was measured to be 5.59 in the case of MiniPET-2 and 6.49 in case of MiniPET-3. Minor differences were found in scatter fraction. When using a rat phantom, the measured NECR peak on the MiniPET-2 was measured as 14 kcps, while the measured NECR peak on the MiniPET-3 was 24 kcps. However, when using a mouse phantom, the NECR peak on the MiniPET-2 was measured at 55 kcps, while the NECR peak on the MiniPET-3 was measured at 91 kcps. The optimal coincidence time window was found to be 3 ns for the MiniPET-2 and 4 ns for the MiniPET-3. Conclusion: Our results indicate that, the main imaging performance of the SiPM-based MiniPET-3 small animal PET scanner does not significantly differ from that of the conventional PMT photo-detector based MiniPET-2. Based on these preliminary results the MiniPET-3 scanner with MRI compatible photo-sensor (SiPM) produces images of comparable quality for small animal imaging than conventional technology.