Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of image quality between step-and-shoot and continuous bed motion techniques in whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the same acquisition duration

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the qualities of whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) images acquired by the step-and-shoot (SS) and continuous bed motion (CBM) techniques with approximately the same acquisition duration, through phantom and clinical studies.

Methods

A body phantom with 10–37 mm spheres was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) solution at a sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio of 4:1 and acquired by both techniques. Reconstructed images were evaluated by visual assessment, percentages of contrast (%Q H) and background variability (%N) in accordance with the Japanese guideline for oncology FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT). To evaluate the variability of the standardized uptake value (SUV), the coefficient of variation (CV) for both maximum SUV and peak SUV was examined. Both the SUV values were additionally compared with those of standard images acquired for 30 min, and their accuracy was evaluated by the %difference (%Diff). In the clinical study, whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT images of 60 patients acquired by both techniques were compared for liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNRliver), CV at end planes, and both SUV values.

Results

In the phantom study, the visual assessment and %Q H values of the two techniques did not differ from each other. However, the %N values of the CBM technique were significantly higher than those of the SS technique. Additionally, the CV and %Diff for both SUV values in the CBM images tended to be slightly higher than those in SS images. In the clinical study, the SNRliver values of CBM images were significantly lower than those of SS images, although the CV at the end planes in CBM images was significantly lower than those in SS images. In the Bland–Altman analysis for both SUV values, the mean differences were close to 0, and most lesions exhibited SUVs within the limits of agreement.

Conclusions

The CBM technique exhibited slightly lesser uniformity in the center plane than the SS technique. Additionally, in the phantom study, the CV and %Diff of SUV values in CBM images tended to be slightly higher than those of SS images. However, since these differences were subtle, they might be negligible in clinical settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kitamura K, Tanaka K, Sato T. Implementation of continuous 3D whole-body PET scanning using on-the-fly Fourier rebinning. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:2705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burbar Z, Michel C, Towsend D, Jakoby B, Sibomana M, Kehren F, et al. Continuous bed motion data processing for a high resolution LSO PET/CT scanner. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2005;4:2046–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brasse D, Newport D, Carney JP, Yap JT, Reynolds C, Reed J, et al. Continuous bed motion acquisition on a whole body combined PET/CT system. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2002;2:951–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Acuff S, Osborne D. Clinical workflow considerations for implementation of continuous-bed-motion PET/CT. J Nucl Med Technol. 2016;44:55–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahlbom M, Yu DC, Cherry SR, Chatziioannou A, Hoffman EJ. Methods for improving image quality in whole body PET scanning. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1992;39:1079–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahlbom M, Cutler PD, Digby WM, Luk WK, Reed J. Characterization of sampling schemes for whole body PET imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1994;41:1571–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Townsend D, Reed J, Newport D, Carney JPJ, Tolbert S, Newby D, et al. Continuous bed motion acquisition for an LSO PET/CT scanner. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2004;4:2383–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Braun H, Ziegler S, Paulus DH, Quick H. Hybrid PET/MRI imaging with continuous table motion. Med Phys. 2012;39:2735–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. 2014;5:56–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Schatka I, Weiberg D, Reichelt S, Owsianski-Hille N, Derlin T, Berding G, 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. 2016;43:711–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rausch I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Dapra D, Gallowitsch HJ, Lind P, Beyer T, et al. Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2:26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fukukita H, Suzuki K, Matsumoto K, Terauchi T, Daisaki H, Ikari Y, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 2.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:693–705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tong S, Alessio AM, Thielemans K, Stearns C, Ross S, Kinahan PE. Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58:2264–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:985–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden PK, Cook GJ. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:133–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Takeshita T, Morita K, Tsutsui Y, Kidera D, Mikasa S, Maebatake A, et al. The influence of respiratory motion on the cumulative SUV-volume histogram and fractal analyses of intratumoral heterogeneity in PET/CT imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:393–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Radiology, Public Central Hospital of Matto Ishikawa, 3-8 Kuramitsu, Hakusan, 924-8588, Japan

    Shozo Yamashita, Haruki Yamamoto & Tetsu Nakaichi

  2. Division of Thyroid, Public Central Hospital of Matto Ishikawa, 3-8 Kuramitsu, Hakusan, 924-8588, Japan

    Tatsuya Yoneyama

  3. PET Imaging Center, Public Central Hospital of Matto Ishikawa, 3-8 Kuramitsu, Hakusan, 924-8588, Japan

    Kunihiko Yokoyama

Authors
  1. Shozo Yamashita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haruki Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tetsu Nakaichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tatsuya Yoneyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kunihiko Yokoyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shozo Yamashita.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yamashita, S., Yamamoto, H., Nakaichi, T. et al. Comparison of image quality between step-and-shoot and continuous bed motion techniques in whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the same acquisition duration. Ann Nucl Med 31, 686–695 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1200-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1200-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation