Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NEMA NU2-2012 performance measurements of the United Imaging uPMR790: an integrated PET/MR system

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

Abstract

Purpose

In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the positron emission tomography (PET) performance of, to the best of our knowledge, the third commercially available whole-body integrated PET/magnetic resonance (MR) system.

Methods

The PET system performance was measured following the NEMA standards with and without simultaneous MR operation. PET spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count-rate performance, accuracy of count losses and random corrections, image quality, and time-of-flight (TOF) resolution were quantitatively evaluated. Clinical scans were acquired at the PET/MR system and compared with images acquired at a PET/CT with the same digital detector technology.

Results

Measurement results of essential PET performance were reported in the form of MR idle (MR pulsing). The axial, radial, and tangential spatial resolutions were measured as 2.72 mm (2.73 mm), 2.86 mm (2.85 mm), and 2.81 mm (2.82 mm) FWHM, respectively, at 1 cm radial offset. The NECR peak was measured as 129.2 kcps (129.5 kcps) at 14.7 kBq mL−1 (14.2 kBq mL−1). The scatter fraction at NECR peak was 37.9% (36.5%), and the maximum slice error below NECR was 4.1% (4.5%). Contrast recovery coefficients ranged from 51.8% (52.3%) for 10 mm hot sphere to 87.3% (87.2%) for 37 mm cold sphere. TOF resolution at 5.3 kBq mL−1 was measured at 535 ps (540 ps). With point source, TOF was measured to be 474 ps (485 ps). Clinical scans revealed similar image quality from the PET/MR and the comparative PET/CT system.

Conclusion

The PET performance of the newly introduced integrated PET/MR system is not significantly affected by the simultaneous operation of an MR sequence (2-point DIXON sequence). Measurement results demonstrate comparable performance with other state-of-the-art PET/MR systems. The clinical benefits of high spatial resolution and long axial coverage remain to be further evaluated in specific clinical imaging applications.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All of NEMA raw data images are stored at the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China, and United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd., China.

References

  1. Bailey DL, et al. Combined PET/MR: the real work has just started. Summary report of the third international workshop on PET/MR imaging; February 17-21, 2014, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(3):297–312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey DL, et al. Combined PET/MR: where are we now? Summary report of the second international workshop on PET/MR imaging April 8-12, 2013, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014;16(3):295–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey DL, et al. Summary report of the first international workshop on PET/MR imaging, March 19-23, 2012, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15(4):361–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey DL, et al. Combined PET/MRI: from status quo to status go. Summary report of the fifth international workshop on PET/MR imaging, February 15-19, 2016, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016;18(5):637–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey DL, et al. Combined PET/MRI: multi-modality multi-parametric imaging is here: summary report of the 4th international workshop on PET/MR imaging; February 23-27, 2015, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(5):595–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abgral R, et al. Clinical utility of combined FDG-PET/MR to assess myocardial disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(5):594–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakajo K, et al. Diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion images of gynecological malignant tumors: comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28(2):95–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grueneisen J, et al. Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(12):1814–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shin HW, et al. Initial experience in hybrid PET-MRI for evaluation of refractory focal onset epilepsy. Seizure. 2015;31:1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller-Thomas MM, Benzinger TL. Neurologic applications of PET/MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(2):297–313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaska P, Cao T. The state of instrumentation for combined positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. In: Seminars in nuclear medicine. 2013. Elsevier.

  12. Herzog H, Lerche C. Advances in clinical PET/MRI instrumentation. PET Clin. 2016;11(2):95–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herzog H, Van Den Hoff J. Combined PET/MR systems: an overview and comparison of currently available options. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56(3):247–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hope TA, et al. Summary of the first ISMRM-SNMMI workshop on PET/MRI: applications and limitations. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(10):1340–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zaidi H, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(10):3091–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Delso G, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(12):1914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grant AM, et al. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levin CS, et al. Performance of a high sensitivity time-of-flight PET ring operating simultaneously within a 3T MR system. In: EJNMMI physics. 2014. Springer.

  19. Bailey DL, et al. Combined PET/MRI: global warming-summary report of the 6th international workshop on PET/MRI, March 27-29, 2017, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20(1):4–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cao T, Chen S, Pang L. NEMA NU2-2012 performance measurements of the United-Imaging uPMR790: a HD TOF simultaneous PET/MR system. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(supplement 1):1856.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Association, N.E.M., NEMA Standards Publication NU-2 2012 performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. 2012: Rosslyn, VA.

  22. Association, N.E.M., NEMA Standards Publication NU-2 2018 performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. 2018: Rosslyn, VA.

  23. Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979;3(3):299–308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Watson CC, Newport D, Casey ME. A single scatter simulation technique for scatter correction in 3D PET. In: Three-dimensional image reconstruction in radiology and nuclear medicine: Springer; 1996. p. 255–68.

  25. Lv Y, et al. Mini EXPLORER II: a prototype high-sensitivity PET/CT scanner for companion animal whole body and human brain scanning. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(7):075004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bunka M, et al. Imaging quality of (44)Sc in comparison with five other PET radionuclides using Derenzo phantoms and preclinical PET. Appl Radiat Isot. 2016;110:129–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cox BL, et al. Development of a novel linearly-filled Derenzo microPET phantom. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;6(3):199–204.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang Q, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT with mpMRI for preoperative lymph node staging in patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. J Transl Med. 2017;15(1):230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu G, et al. Validation of MR-based attenuation correction of a newly released whole-body simultaneous PET/MR system. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:8213215.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Amorim BJ, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR in treated colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(11):2260–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Galgano S, et al. Practical considerations for clinical PET/MR imaging. PET Clin. 2018;13(1):97–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mansi L, Ciarmiello A. Perspectives on PET/MR imaging: are we ready for clinical use? J Nucl Med. 2014;55(4):529–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rausch I, et al. Performance evaluation of the biograph mCT flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Vandendriessche D, et al. Performance characteristics of silicon photomultiplier based 15-cm AFOV TOF PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6(1):8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rausch I, et al. Performance evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(4):561–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van Sluis J, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(7):1031–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011;648 Supplement 1:S236–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. MacDonald LR, Dahlbom M. Parallax correction in PET using depth of interaction information. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1998;45(4):2232–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Deller TW, et al. PET imaging stability measurements during simultaneous pulsing of aggressive MR sequences on the SIGNA PET/MR system. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty (shslczdzk03401).

Funding

Supported by National Key Research and Development Plan “Digital Diagnosis and Treatment Equipment Research and Development” Key Specialty (2016YFC0103900), Shanghai Science and Technology Commission “Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan” in the Field of Cooperation in the Field of Industry, Education and Research (19DZ1930700), Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty(shslczdzk03401).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 1609 Xietu Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Shuguang Chen, Yushen Gu, Haojun Yu & Hongcheng Shi

  2. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Shuguang Chen, Yushen Gu, Haojun Yu & Hongcheng Shi

  3. United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China

    Xin Chen, Tuoyu Cao & Lingzhi Hu

Authors
  1. Shuguang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yushen Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haojun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tuoyu Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lingzhi Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hongcheng Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HS contributed to the design of this study. SC designed and performed the experiments. SC, YG, and HY were in charge of the preparation of the NEMA phantom and of the acquisition. SC, XC, and LH analyzed the data. SC and TC drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongcheng Shi.

Ethics declarations

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.

Informed consent

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

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

Xin Chen, Tuoyu Cao, and Lingzhi Hu are employees of United Imaging Healthcare. The other authors working with Zhongshan Hospital have full control of the data and declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Technology

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 1057 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, S., Gu, Y., Yu, H. et al. NEMA NU2-2012 performance measurements of the United Imaging uPMR790: an integrated PET/MR system. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48, 1726–1735 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05135-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05135-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation