Abstract
Purpose
Three-dimensional positron emission tomography (3D PET) results in higher system sensitivity, with an associated increase in the detection of scatter and random coincidences. The objective of this work was to compare, from a clinical perspective, 3D and two-dimensional (2D) acquisitions in terms of whole-body (WB) PET image quality with a dedicated BGO PET system.
Methods
2D and 3D WB emission acquisitions were carried out in 70 patients. Variable acquisition parameters in terms of time of emission acquisition per axial field of view (aFOV) and slice overlap between sequential aFOVs were used during the 3D acquisitions. 3D and 2D images were reconstructed using FORE+WLS and OSEM respectively. Scatter correction was performed by convolution subtraction and a model-based scatter correction in 2D and 3D respectively. All WB images were attenuation corrected using segmented transmission scans. Images were blindly assessed by three observers for the presence of artefacts, confidence in lesion detection and overall image quality using a scoring system.
Results
Statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D image quality were only obtained for 3D emission acquisitions of 3 min. No statistically significant differences were observed for image artefacts or lesion detectability scores. Image quality correlated significantly with patient weight for both modes of operation. Finally, no differences were seen in image artefact scores for the different axial slice overlaps considered, suggesting the use of five slice overlaps in 3D WB acquisitions.
Conclusion
3D WB imaging using a dedicated BGO-based PET scanner offers similar image quality to that obtained in 2D considering similar overall times of acquisitions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncol 2001;2(3):157–64.
Visvikis D, Turzo A, Bizais Y, Cheze-Le Rest C. Technology related parameters affecting quantification in positron emission tomography imaging. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25:637–41.
Bendriem B, Townsend TW. The theory and practice of 3D PET. Kluwer Academic 1998.
Badawi RD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, Sutcliffe JL, Maisey MN. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:1755–76.
Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trebossen R. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole body PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1268–78.
Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, Lecchi M, Castiglioni I, Gilardi MC et al. Performance evaluation of the new whole body PET/CT scanner: discovery ST. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(6):867–81.
Lartizien C, Kinahan PE, Comtat C. A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole body PET imaging protocols. J Nucl Med 2004;45(4):714–23.
Visvikis D, Griffiths D, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Comparison of clinical 2D and 3D PET imaging using a BGO based dedicated system (abstract). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(S2):S331.
Lodge MA, Lowe J, Lowe G, et al. A comparison of 2D and 3D PET images using an interleaved septa-in/septa-out acquisition protocol (abstract). J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):206P.
Raylman RR, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Capabilities of two- and three-dimensional FDG-PET for detecting small lesions and lymph nodes in the upper torso: a dynamic phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:39–45.
Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med 2004;45:797–801.
Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, Muylle K, Caveliers V, Bossuyt A. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1615–9.
Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for 18FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326–35.
Stearns CW, Fessler JA. 3D PET reconstruction with FORE and WLS-OS-EM. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:912–5.
Bergstrom M, Eriksson L, Bohm C, Blomqvist G, Litton J. Correction for scattered radiation in a ring detector positron camera by integral transformation of the projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1983;7(1):42–50.
Wollenweber SD. Parameterisation of a model based 3D PET scatter correction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2002;49:722–7.
Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer S, Stearns CW. Comparison of NEC and subjective image quality measures in 2D and 3D whole body PET imaging. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;3:1393–6.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.
Chiang S, Cardi C, Matej S, Zhuang H, Newberg A, Alavi A. Clinical validation of fully 3D versus 2.5D RAMLA reconstruction on the Philips-ADAC CPET PET scanner. Nucl Med Comm 2004;25:1103–7.
El Fakhri G, Holdsworth C, Badawi RD, Santos PA, Moore SC, Van den Abbeele AD. Impact of acquisition geometry and patient habitus on lesion detectability in whole body FDG-PET: a channelised hotelling observer study. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:1402–5.
Kadrmas DJ, Christian PE, Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer SG, Stearns CW. Comparative evaluation of 2D and 3D lesion detectability on a full-ring BGO PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):204P.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Anita Harte and Varie Hastings for the acquisition of the patient data presented in this study. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. Catherine Cheze Le Rest for useful discussions during the revision of this manuscript and Dr. Federico Turkheimer for his advice on statistical analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Visvikis, D., Griffiths, D., Costa, D.C. et al. Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32, 1050–1056 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-1809-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-1809-9