Abstract
Purpose
Continuous bed motion has recently been introduced for whole-body PET/CT, and represents a paradigm shift towards individualized and flexible acquisition without the limitations of bed position-based planning. Increased patient comfort due to lack of abrupt table position changes may be another albeit still unproven advantage. For robust clinical implementation, image quality and quantitative accuracy should at least be equal to the prior standard of bed position-based step-and-shoot imaging.
Methods
The study included 68 consecutive patients referred for whole-body PET/CT for various malignancies. The patients underwent traditional step-and-shoot and novel continuous bed motion acquisition in the same session in a randomized crossover design. The patients and two independent observers were blinded to the sequence of scan techniques. Patient comfort/satisfaction was examined using a standardized questionnaire. SUVs were compared for reference tissue (liver, muscle) and tumour lesions. PET image quality and misalignment with CT images were evaluated on a scale of 1 – 4.
Results
Patients preferred continuous bed motion over step-and-shoot (P = 0.0001). It was considered to be more relaxing (38 % vs. 8 %), quieter (34 % vs. 8 %), and more fluid (64 % vs. 8 %). Image quality, SUV and CT misalignment did not differ between the techniques. Continuous bed motion resulted in better end-plane image quality (P < 0.0001). Regardless of the technique, second examinations had significantly higher tumour lesion SUVmax values (P = 0.0002), and a higher CT misalignment score (P = 0.0017).
Conclusion
Oncological PET/CT with continuous bed motion enhances patient comfort and is associated with image quality at least comparable to that with traditional bed position-based step-and-shoot acquisition.qq
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bengel FM, Ziegler SI, Avril N, Weber W, Laubenbacher C, Schwaiger M. Whole-body positron emission tomography in clinical oncology: comparison between attenuation-corrected and uncorrected images. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:1091–8.
Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ, Hoh CK, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography: Part I. Methods and performance characteristics. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1191–9.
Dahlbom M, Reed J, Young J. Implementation of true continuous bed motion in 2-D and 3-D whole-body PET scanning. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2001;48:1465–9.
Ceccarini G, Flavell RR, Butelman ER, Synan M, Willnow TE, Bar-Dagan M, et al. PET imaging of leptin biodistribution and metabolism in rodents and primates. Cell Metab. 2009;10:148–59.
Marik J, Tartis MS, Zhang H, Fung JY, Kheirolomoom A, Sutcliffe JL, et al. Long-circulating liposomes radiolabeled with [18F]fluorodipalmitin ([18F]FDP). Nucl Med Biol. 2007;34:165–71.
Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, Schepis T, Pflederer T, Anders K, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:340–6.
Brauck K, Zenge MO, Vogt FM, Quick HH, Stock F, Trarbach T, et al. Feasibility of whole-body MR with T2- and T1-weighted real-time steady-state free precession sequences during continuous table movement to depict metastases. Radiology. 2008;246:910–6.
Braun H, Ziegler S, Lentschig MG, Quick HH. Implementation and performance evaluation of simultaneous PET/MR whole-body imaging with continuous table motion. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:161–8.
Osborne DR, Acuff S, Cruise S, Syed M, Neveu M, Stuckey A, et al. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of continuous bed motion and traditional step and shoot PET/CT. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5:56–64.
Panin VY, Smith AM, Hu J, Kehren F, Casey ME. Continuous bed motion on clinical scanner: design, data correction, and reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:6153–74.
Ben-Haim S, Kacperski K, Hain S, Van Gramberg D, Hutton BF, Erlandsson K, et al. Simultaneous dual-radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with a solid-state dedicated cardiac camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1710–21.
Boiselle PM, Dippolito G, Copeland J, Kang H, Ahmed M, Weeks D, et al. Multiplanar and 3D imaging of the central airways: comparison of image quality and radiation dose of single-detector row CT and multi-detector row CT at differing tube currents in dogs. Radiology. 2003;228:107–11.
Fahey F, Zukotynski K, Zurakowski D, Markelewicz R, Falone A, Vitello M, et al. Beyond current guidelines: reduction in minimum administered radiopharmaceutical activity with preserved diagnostic image quality in pediatric hepatobiliary scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2346–53.
Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Judenhofer MS. Latest advances in molecular imaging instrumentation. J Nucl Med. 2008;49 Suppl 2:5S–23.
Achenbach S, Marwan M, Schepis T, Pflederer T, Bruder H, Allmendinger T, et al. High-pitch spiral acquisition: a new scan mode for coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3:117–21.
Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P. Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology. 1990;176:181–3.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50.
Weber WA, Gatsonis CA, Mozley PD, Hanna LG, Shields AF, Aberle DR, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: prospective assessment in 2 multicenter trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1137–43.
Cherry SR, Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ. 3D PET using a conventional multislice tomograph without septa. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;15:655–68.
Everding M, Emery D, Mawlawi O, Millican-Campbell R, Palendat T, Pan T, et al. Impact of continuous bed motion (CBM) PET/CT scanners on clinical operation (abstract). J Nucl Med. 2014;55 Suppl 1:2511.
Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1041–7.
Acuff SN, Bradley YC, Barlow P, Osborne DR. Reduction of patient anxiety in PET/CT imaging by improving communication between patient and technologist. J Nucl Med Technol. 2014;42:211–7.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the staff of the PET Center of the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Hannover Medical School for reliable performance of the PET studies and assistance with questionnaire completion. The authors also thank the staff of the Institute of Epidemiology of Hannover Medical School for helpful review of the patient questionnaire, and the staff of the Institute of Biometry of Hannover Medical School for advice on statistical analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was supported by a research grant from Siemens AG to Hannover Medical School (MHH).
Conflicts of interest
F.M.B. receives research grants from Mallinckrodt Pharma, Siemens AG, GE Healthcare, and speaker honoraria from GE Healthcare and Mallinckrodt Pharma. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schatka, I., Weiberg, D., Reichelt, S. et al. A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of novel continuous bed motion versus traditional bed position whole-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 711–717 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3226-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3226-z