Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and lesion detection capability between a digital and an analog PET/CT system in oncological patients.

Materials and methods

One hundred oncological patients (62 men, 38 women; mean age of 65 ± 12 years) were prospectively included from January–June 2018. All patients, who accepted to be scanned by two systems, consecutively underwent a single day, dual imaging protocol (digital and analog PET/CT). Three nuclear medicine physicians evaluated image quality using a 4-point scale (−1, poor; 0, fair; 1, good; 2, excellent) and detection capability by counting the number of lesions with increased radiotracer uptake. Differences were considered significant for a p value <0.05.

Results

Improved image quality in the digital over the analog system was observed in 54% of the patients (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 44.2–63.5). The percentage of interrater concordance in lesion detection capability between the digital and analog systems was 97%, with an interrater measure agreement of κ = 0.901 (p < 0.0001). Although there was no significant difference in the total number of lesions detected by the two systems (digital: 5.03 ± 10.6 vs. analog: 4.53 ± 10.29; p = 0.7), the digital system detected more lesions in 22 of 83 of PET+ patients (26.5%) (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 17.9–36.7). In these 22 patients, all lesions detected by the digital PET/CT (and not by the analog PET/CT) were < 10 mm.

Conclusion

Digital PET/CT offers improved image quality and lesion detection capability over the analog PET/CT in oncological patients, and even better for sub-centimeter lesions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1378–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wright C, Binzel K, Zhang J, et al. Advanced functional tumor imaging and precision nuclear medicine enabled by digital PET technologies. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017:5260305. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5260305.

  3. Frach T, Prescher G, Degenhardt C, et al. The digital silicon photomultiplier: principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2009:1959–65.

  4. Degenhardt C, Prescher G, Frach T, et al. The digital silicon photomultiplier: a novel sensor for the detection of scintillation light. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2009:2383–6.

  5. Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(1):5–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, et al. Performance evaluation of the Philips Vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2–2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2018: Oct 25. pii 118.21554.

  7. Degenhardt C, Rodrigues P, Trindade A, et al. Performance evaluation of a prototype positron emission tomography scanner using digital photon counters (DPC). IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2012:2820–4.

  8. Fuentes-Ocampo F, Paillahueque G, Lopez-Mora DA, et al. Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intrapersonal SUV comparison of target lesions and reference regions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(Suppl 1):S212–3 OP-658.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, et al. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rausch I, Cal-González J, Dapra D, 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 

  11. Suljic A, Tomse P, Jensterle L, et al. The impact of reconstruction algorithms and time of flight information on PET/CT image quality. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49:227–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller MGJ, Jordan D, Laurence T, et al. Initial characterization of a prototype digital photon counting PET system. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:658.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funded in part by an unrestricted grant from Philips Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Alfonso López-Mora.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict 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 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-Mora, D.A., Flotats, A., Fuentes-Ocampo, F. et al. Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46, 1383–1390 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-4260-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-4260-z

Keywords

Navigation