Abstract
We focus on reviewing state-of-the-art developments of dedicated PET scanners with irregular geometries and the potential of different aspects of multifunctional PET imaging. First, we discuss advances in non-conventional PET detector geometries. Then, we present innovative designs of organ-specific dedicated PET scanners for breast, brain, prostate, and cardiac imaging. We will also review challenges and possible artifacts by image reconstruction algorithms for PET scanners with irregular geometries, such as non-cylindrical and partial angular coverage geometries and how they can be addressed. Then, we attempt to address some open issues about cost/benefits analysis of dedicated PET scanners, how far are the theoretical conceptual designs from the market/clinic, and strategies to reduce fabrication cost without compromising performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
During the past 70 years or so, since the invention of the first positron-emitting imaging device in Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston [1], PET instrumentation evolved drastically in terms of performance characteristics, application, and availability. It is evident that improving the performance of PET in terms of spatial resolution and sensitivity will lead to wider adoption of this imaging modality in the clinic. Yet, an increase in the number of reimbursed clinical indications does not necessarily lead to higher global availability and accessibility to this technology. Availability/Accessibility depends mostly on fabrication cost. Based on a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), among 212 countries, only 109 have access to PET technology [2]. The number of PET scanners in high-income countries is 3.52 per million population, while it falls to 0.004 per million in low-income countries. Gallach et al. showed that at least 96 countries need to increase the number of PET/CT scanners and more than 200 additional PET/CT scanners are necessary to address the main common types of cancer, including lung, colorectal, lymphoma, head and neck, melanoma, and esophagus [3]. They estimated that approximately 229.3 M US$ are needed to equip these 96 countries with 16-slice PET/CT scanners. These statistics raise a few important questions; should the medical physics community (mainly instrumentation research groups) focus on improving PET scanners’ performance or their accessibility? Is it really necessary to compete toward developing fancy detector modules or complex PET configurations to improve the spatial resolution by a few percent or compete on developing methods for reducing fabrication cost? As a thought experiment, is it more beneficial for the society to have more PET scanners with low performance or fewer PET scanners with high performance?
A dedicated or organ-specific PET scanner may be the answer to the above-mentioned questions. Dedicated PET scanners optimized for scanning one specific organ offer both high performance and low manufacturing cost in comparison with general-purpose high-end whole-body PET scanners, which makes them more affordable and accessible. Their easier commissioning, maintenance, and training in addition to their smaller fingerprint or space consumption make them ideal for low-income and middle-income countries and small clinics in high-income countries. Although dedicated PET scanners inherently bear limitations in common clinical scenarios requiring whole-body scans (e.g., staging in clinical oncology), it must be emphasized that these specialized scanners, though more accessible, are not intended to replace the broader utility of whole-body PET scanners in clinical setting.
Apart from organ-specific dedicated PET scanners, designing irregular whole-body PET scanners is of great significance in the field of PET instrumentation. Improving the design of whole-body PET scanners by introducing novel detector concepts and geometrical configurations holds a significant level of enthusiasm in applied research. Novel ideas include extendable axial field-of-view [4], adjustable gantry diameter/shape [5], or scanners equipped with thick and thin detectors’ modules [6], or using plastic scintillators [7] and pseudo-pixelated crystals [6]. Besides the novelties in PET hardware, software advances, specifically involving the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), might play a crucial role in reducing fabrication costs and improving PET performance. A number of preliminary studies have shown that AI have the potential to reduce cost and complexity, for instance, by removing the time-of-flight (TOF) hardware [8, 9], CT for attenuation correction [10], or even improving the resolution of monolithic and pixelated crystals [11]. In this review, we describe irregular and dedicated PET scanners and discuss the technical innovations that are likely to drive the future of conventional PET scanners. This introductory paper summarizes briefly recent advances in the field and provide insights on potential future developments.
Advances in non-conventional PET detector geometries
Research on PET detectors, at both the hardware and software levels, has mostly been focused on improving the key performance characteristics of the detectors, namely, the spatial resolution and the intrinsic sensitivity. Increasing the detector's sensitivity elevates the collected true coincidence events at a decreased level of injected activity and shortened scanning time, whereas achieving better spatial resolution improves image quality and quantitative accuracy. On one hand, using thicker crystals allows higher sensitivity at the cost of reduced depth-of-interaction (DOI) localization accuracy, which leads to parallax errors [inaccuracy in positioning the line of response (LOR)] and deteriorated spatial resolution. On the other hand, higher spatial resolution is achievable with smaller crystal cross-sectional size, but this will worsen detector sensitivity due to poor scintillation light collection and crystal identification. Accordingly, there is an intrinsic trade-off between key characteristics of the PET detectors making technological advancements challenging [12].
The solution to this trade-off is substantiated in two key technologies, namely, DOI determination and TOF capability [13]. The DOI information minimizes the parallax error and allows providing a more uniform spatial resolution. This is gaining importance in organ-specific imagers with small gantries and/or irregular geometries [14, 15]. Last but not least, DOI might help improving the energy resolution by generating specific photopeaks for different depths of annihilation photons’ detection when the crystals have a rough surface finish [16]. Furthermore, TOF information has the potential to significantly increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of PET images by limiting the location of the positron annihilation point along the LOR to a smaller segment [17]. High temporal resolution TOF technology is being increasingly highlighted in recent PET instrumentation research. Although currently, coincidence time resolutions (CTR) below 150 picoseconds (ps) full width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) are challenging to obtain, the ultimate goal is 10 ps CTR FWHM, since theoretically, it would directly give access to a reasonably accurate position of the positron annihilation [18]. This information enables to alleviate the difficulties associated with image reconstruction. This is particularly important in organ-specific PET scanners owing to the multiple challenges introduced by irregular geometries in the reconstruction process. A couple of scanner manufacturers unveiled at the last annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine (June 2023) novel PET scanners achieving temporal TOF resolutions of 178 ps and 194 ps for Siemens Healthineers and United Imaging, respectively.
However, TOF and DOI measurements are not independent of each other. The uncertainty in the DOI can induce errors in timing resolution due to the speed of optical photons in dense crystal medium. In Table 1, we summarized the most innovative detector designs by considering important aspects, such as energy, DOI, TOF resolution, and type of scintillator and readout technology. We also summarized the golden innovation aspects of these studies in the innovation column. Common techniques include Phoswich detectors [19, 20] equipped with pulse-shape discrimination schemes [21], multiple-layered detectors with independent readout for each layer [22], dual-ended readout techniques [23, 24], light-sharing detectors using a particular arrangement of crystals and reflectors [13, 25, 26], detectors with phosphor-coated crystals [27], sub-surface laser-induced optical barriers [28, 29], monolithic crystals coupled with a retroreflector layer [30], and finally machine learning approaches [11, 31, 32].
The Phoswich detectors’ approach commonly consists of multiple layers of different types of scintillators with different decay times, stacked on each other. Although Phoswich detectors can achieve good DOI resolution, their timing resolution is degraded. In fact, the boundaries between the layers reduce the number of optical photons arriving at the photosensors, and the variability of the arrival time of photons from different layers degrades the timing resolution [13]. Light-sharing detectors couple two crystals together by a particular arrangement of reflectors to imitate a dual-ended readout with a single-ended design. Pizzichemi et al. developed a TOF-DOI-PET module containing an array of crystals with 4-to-1 crystal-to-SiPM arrangement at one end, and a uniform glass light guide on the opposite side to redirect upgoing photons back into neighboring crystals [25]. By using particular prisms for crystals at edges and corners, and optimizing inter-crystal light sharing due to the prism reflection, LaBella et al. achieved better crystal identification, DOI resolution of 2.5 mm, and energy resolution of 9% [26].
Another series of light-sharing detectors, known as crosshair light-sharing detectors [13, 33], consist of crystal pairs partially coupled with optical windows, attached to two different Multi-Pixel Photon Counters (MPPCs). Parts of the crystals that are not coupled with optical windows are attached to reflectors. The DOI and crystal identification is calculated based on the output pattern of the paired MPPCs.
Detector modules based on monolithic crystals have a number of advantages, such as higher sensitivity, the ability to extract DOI, no zero detection regions, decent performance in spatial resolution, and less manufacturing cost. However, these detectors commonly require complex calibration procedures, and complicated algorithms for the location, energy, and timing assignation of photon interactions. Moreover, the spatial resolution deteriorates around the edges, although multiple studies attempted to confront this issue by calibrating the detector using analytical [34], simulation-based [35], and experimental [36] approaches.
Various research groups developed semi-monolithic detectors based on different designs. Sabet et al. [29] proposed a semi-monolithic detector using laser-induced optical barriers (LIOB), which creates small defects inside the LYSO crystal bulk that operate as an optical reflector, to combine the advantages of monolithic and pixelated crystals. Sanaat et al. suggested a novel concept for deflecting the trajectory of optical photons passing through a monolithic scintillator [37]. The proposed technique consists of a reflective belt created from millions of optical barrier points covering the surroundings of the crystal, created by the LIOB method. A monolithic crystal with a belt of reflectors created by laser engraving can lead to better spatial resolution and sensitivity.
Most recently, artificial intelligence was introduced as an effective tool for both accurate TOF estimation and positioning of photon interactions in PET detectors [38,39,40]. The best performance for both event positioning and time stamping resolution have been attained by complex algorithms, such as gradient tree boosting [41], maximum-likelihood [41], nearest neighbors [42], and neural networks [43] applied on monolithic crystals.
Conceptual designs of dedicated/irregular PET scanners
Multi-purpose or conventional PET scanners are intended for almost all clinical applications, including static whole-body, dynamic, brain, cardiac, prostate, and breast scans, as well as absorbed dose verification in heavy-ion radiation therapy [44, 45]. In Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, we listed and categorized dedicated/irregular PET scanners for brain, breast, prostate, and cardiac imaging, respectively. The design and performance parameters, such as spatial resolution, sensitivity, type of scintillator, and geometrical configuration, were listed to enable a quick comparison between the models. One column provides the technical details to provide the hidden aspects of the scanner design. Figure 1 depicts a short history of dedicated/irregular PET scanners development from the first dual-head PET scanner designed and developed in 1953 to the most technically complex and expensive total-body PET scanner. This figure covers a range of different geometrical designs from the dual-panel to dodecahedral geometry and moveable gantries with adjustable detectors.
Overview of dedicated/irregular PET scanner geometries over the last 70 years. Courtesy of various sources, Refs. [5, 55, 58, 68, 69, 118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]. ©IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Refs. [68, 121,122,123]. ©RSNA, Reprinted, with permission, from Ref. [119]. ©SNMMI Reprinted, with permission, from Ref. 120. ©IOP Publishing Ltd. with permission, from [5, 55]. ©John Wiley & Sons. Reprinted, with permission, from Ref. [58].
In Fig. 2, we illustrated the improvement in image quality through depicting the 3D brain phantom from 1975 to 2022. This anecdotal illustration provides a sense of images generated by these systems as the data acquisition and reconstruction protocols were different. Yet, one can observe that scanners with small geometrical coverage (e.g., Helmet and PET-Hat) lead to quality degradation and provide less anatomical information. The insert PET scanners, like RF-penetrable, also generated blurred images, which can be caused by inaccurate attenuation correction.
Brain PET images of humans or 3D Hoffman brain phantom acquired by different simulated or physical dedicated, conventional, and irregular PET scanners. Courtesy of various sources, Refs. [5, 50, 55, 111, 125, 126, 134, 136, 138, 142, 143, 146, 148, 156]. The images related to reference [126] were taken from https://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/pet/pet_hist.htm. ©IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Refs. [138, 148], ©SNMMI Reprinted, with permission, from Refs. [50, 111, 134], ©IOP Publishing Ltd. with permission, from Refs. [5, 55, 136, 146]
The key factors in the conventional PET scanners are robustness, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative imaging to guarantee/ensure a dependable/reliable examination for the different applications (screening, diagnosis, response to treatment, and follow-up) considering the high throughput of patients in clinical setting. To fulfill the clinical requirements, conventional/multi-purpose PET scanners should provide relatively high sensitivity, moderate spatial resolution, at reasonable cost, and last but not least accurate/reproducible image quantification (since quantitative imaging is crucial in most clinical indications). The compromise/trade-off among these factors is considered in the design of conventional PET scanners, wherein the equipment used for simultaneous or sequential transmission or anatomical imaging is well considered, since it plays a significant role in quantitative PET and synergistic functional–structural imaging [46].
This trade-off would be highly skewed in dedicated PET scanners, since one of these key factors may have central importance in organ- and/or application-specific PET scanners [47]. For instance, in dynamic whole-body PET imaging, sensitivity is the key factor for low-noise estimation of time-activity curves (or parametric maps). Hence, the tendency would be toward extended FOV PET scanners (through adding more detector rings) at the cost of increased product price [48] or having axial gaps and covering a larger AFOV with the same number of detectors as demonstrated on the PennPET Explorer [49]. On the other hand, in brain PET imaging, a higher spatial resolution would be appreciated to register underlying signals from fine brain structures and neuro-connections. Hence, the tendency is toward exploiting/designing high-resolution PET detectors (finely pixelated, thin monolithic crystals, DOI capability, and advanced electronic read-outs) [50].
Organ-specific dedicated PET scanners are often designed to accommodate the target organ while maximizing the sensitivity and SNR. Nonetheless, the compact design of such scanners with small gantry aperture potentially increases parallax errors, thus degrading the spatial resolution uniformity. To alleviate this issue, detectors with discrete or continuous DOI capability are frequently considered (see [51, 52] for a review on various DOI techniques). Careful detector modules’ geometrical optimization has been reported in the literature to maximize performance from various standpoints. The use of several multi-layer LYSO crystal arrangements to improve spatial resolution uniformity and count-rate performance of a compact MR-compatible PET insert were reported [53].
In this review, we attempted to cover all PET scanners belonging to the following categories:
-
Organ-specific dedicated PET scanners (e.g., brain, breast, prostate, etc.).
-
PET scanners with non-cylindrical “asymmetrical” geometries (e.g., planar, partial-ring, oval shape, spherical/hat shape, etc.).
-
Cylindrical geometries with moveable detectors or gantry.
-
Any kind of cylindrical PET scanners bearing some novelty in detector modules’ conceptual design and acquisition techniques.
Some conceptual designs never materialized in real systems demonstrating their potential in clinical setting. Yet, they are briefly discussed in this review for the sake of completeness.
Challenges of PET image reconstruction algorithms for multifunctional PET scanners
Fulfilling the desired high performance of dedicated PET scanners requires the application of proper correction and calibration algorithms. Geometrical symmetries in PET scanners are often used in the calculation of the geometrical components of normalization factors [54]. Nonetheless, organ-specific dedicated PET scanners are designed to maximize the sensitivity when imaging the target organ, which often calls for a geometrically asymmetrical scanner. For instance, a peak sensitivity of more than 10% was achieved by the helmet PET scanner with an added row of detectors along the chin [55, 56]. The proposed helmet-chin scanner achieved 40% higher peak noise equivalent count rate (NECR) compared to a cylindrical PET scanner with the same number of detectors [57]. A similar dodecahedral design benefiting from an almost 4π coverage was suggested by [58]. While such designs boost detection efficiency of an organ-dedicated PET scanner, their asymmetrical geometry adds complexity to the normalization and correction of PET data.
Regarding PET data correction, some organ-specific dedicated PET scanners use concurrently acquired anatomical images from CT or MRI scanner. For instance, NeuroPET [59] includes a CT scanner. Likewise, MR-compatible PET inserts [60, 61] can benefit from the anatomical MR images for both anatomical localization and attenuation and scatter correction (though converting MR images to attenuation maps is another source of complexity). Anatomical MR images have also been used to estimate motion vectors to correct for patient head motion in PET/MR neuroimaging applications [62]. However, the absence of an anatomical imaging modality on most organ-dedicated scanners brings new challenges to PET attenuation and scatter correction which might consequently compromise PET’s quantitative accuracy. In the case of brain imaging, atlas-based u-maps generation was extensively studied [63, 64]. Nonetheless, such approaches are increasingly more challenging and less reliable when imaging other organs. Therefore, attenuation and scatter corrections are sometimes ignored on such scanners [65, 66] or alternative innovative approaches are sought. In addition, detector gain adjustment is a critical consideration that can affect peak location, scatter contribution, and consequently overall image quality in all PET scanners and more specifically on MR-compatible PET inserts [67].
A prostate PET scanner was designed [68] with the unique feature that it can be tilted to minimize photon attenuation effects [69]. Existing CT images from a separate scan can be co-registered to PET images to perform attenuation correction on dedicated prostate PET scanners. Another challenge in the reconstruction of organ-specific scanners is that often a large part of the data might be missing due to the inevitable detector gaps. These can be handled through interpolation, forward projection of an initial image estimate, or directly in the projection domain using deep learning (DL)-based approaches [70,71,72,73].
Table 6 summarizes the challenges and innovations in image reconstruction for a selection of dedicated/irregular PET scanners. In this table, we categorized image reconstruction methods for each geometrical configuration (Cylindrical, Cylindrical with removed/added detector modules, Flat-Panel, Spherical/Pseudo-spherical, and Irregular configuration) and target organ. The potential challenges and drawbacks for each configuration as well as the strategies for addressing them were listed. Furthermore, the calibration and correction method used in these scanners were briefly mentioned.
Summary and future trends
To reflect the perspectives/opinions of experts in the field of PET instrumentation, a survey was designed for this review and sent to 15 PET scientists. This survey included six questions about the design and development of dedicated PET scanners and the future of this field of research. We asked experts in the field to give a score between 1 and 10 for less important to more important or less costly to high costly. For other questions, we also asked them to sort out the options. The response to the questionnaire was averaged and the answers are reported in Fig. 3. Based on this survey, we concluded that the major challenges in dedicated/irregular PET scanner fabrication lie in the optimization of electronics and image reconstruction methods which take the utmost of human resources, while the scintillators and photodetectors take the utmost of financial resources. The majority of the experts also felt that dedicated brain and prostate PET scanners have the highest request, and if the price can be reduced, there will be a large demand. Definitely, none claimed that they will replace whole-body PET scanners. The results also supported the argument that there is a large space for AI to play role in data acquisition, event positioning, and quantitative image reconstruction and that future research should focus more on improving the coincidence time resolution, depth of interaction, and optimal geometrical configurations.
The major motivation behind the design and manufacturing of organ-specific PET scanners is to reduce the cost of end products compared to conventional cylindrical multi-ring PET scanners without scarifying key image quality factors relevant in clinical applications. Yet, the aim of dedicated scanners is not to replace existing clinical whole-body PET systems. In this regard, many efforts have been spent toward the design and building of compact PET scanners dedicated for specific organs with remarkably decreased manufacturing costs by reducing the complexity of PET systems’ design (e.g., using flat panel detectors), reducing the number of detectors, and using cost-effective PET detectors, such as monolithic scintillation crystals [74,75,76]. Owing to high demand for brain, breast, and prostate PET scans, the majority of dedicated PET scanners were designed for the purpose of reducing overall public health costs and increasing the accessibility of PET scanners to remote areas and/or developing/underdeveloped countries [75, 77]. A 2-m-long total-body PET scanner with plastic scintillators, referred to as J-PET [7], is one example of attempts to reduce the cost of a total-body PET scanner. Plastic scintillators used in J-PET have a density of about 1 g/cm3 (whereas LSO and BGO have a density of 7.1 to 7.4 g/cm3, respectively) but can provide decent time resolution (about 220 ps CTR) at the cost of reduced sensitivity [7, 78]. To reduce fabrication cost, a number of groups considered rearranging and reducing the number of detectors while relying on DOI and TOF to compensate for the missing sections (see for instance Ref. [79]).
Since conventional PET scanners are normally capable of providing moderate spatial resolution, a major incentive for dedicated PET scanners is to achieve high spatial resolution of the desired structures, such as in brain imaging. The majority of high-resolution dedicated PET scanners are designed for brain imaging, wherein quantitative and high-resolution imaging of brain-specific radiotracers in small structures and neuro-connections is highly desirable [80].To this end, high-resolution pixelated detectors improved DOI and TOF capability, whereas high-speed electronic readout technologies are employed on dedicated brain PET scanners [81, 82]. Furthermore, owing to the small FOV required in brain PET imaging, high-sensitivity imaging could be easily achieved by covering the whole head area, as used on the helmet PET scanner [56].
In addition to achieving low-cost (for prevalent PET scans, such as prostate imaging) and high-resolution (for dedicated brain studies) PET imaging, the motivation behind designing dedicated PET scanners targets specific applications that cannot be accomplished with conventional PET scanners. Range verification in heavy-ion therapy (such as proton radiation therapy) plays a key role in accurate radiation treatment planning monitoring, wherein the identification of the Brag peak location is crucial to deliver the maximum radiation dose to the target volumes and spare healthy/normal tissues [83, 84]. Online (in-beam) PET imaging in heavy-ion radiation treatment requires an open gantry PET design for direct access of radiation beams to the patients [84]. A two-panel PET design is commonly considered for online PET imagers, where the patient could be accessed from two other sides. Due to the fact that the rate/probability of positron emission is not very high, these PET scanners should be equipped with high-sensitivity detectors to achieve acceptable SNR (sensitivity has higher priority than spatial resolution in this case) [85, 86]. Another interesting design, referred to as human-scale single-ring OpenPET system, providing an open space area by axially shifting the detectors to different sides in the axial direction, is suitable for online range verification in heavy-ion therapy [87].
In addition, simultaneous imaging of the target areas is crucial to achieve accurate whole-body dynamic and parametric PET imaging. This would also obviate the need for blood plasma sampling (input function) provided that the major body blood pools are covered in PET imaging [88]. In this regard, extended FOV or total-body PET systems gain attention for enabling fully parametric imaging as well as very low-dose or ultra-fast PET scans [49, 89]. The key factor in the design of such systems is the extensive coverage of the body at the cost of a dramatic increase in manufacturing expenses. To address this issue, extendable FOV PET scanners have been proposed/designed to reduce the number of required PET detectors (to reduce the overall manufacturing cost) while providing the required axial FOV. In these PET scanners, the detector rings are mounted on a mechanical mechanism allowing for an axial extension [90,91,92]. Furthermore, arterial blood sampling is crucial (regarded as gold standard) in dynamic PET studies. This has encouraged to design and build a dedicated small PET scanner for non-invasive image-guided input function estimation (SynchroPET ArterialPETTM scanner (Stony Brook, NY, USA) [92]. Such scanners require very small FOV (as large as a human arm diameter) with a good spatial resolution to reduce errors due to partial volume effect. Low-cost, ease of use, and high spatial resolution and sensitivity for input function estimation is the incentive behind building bracelet PET scanners.
Novel PET geometries, configurations, and detector designs are proposed in the context of conceptual design which could be promising for many applications [93]. However, in some conceptual designs, manufacturing cost is ignored, and sometimes, the improvements brought by complex designs are marginal [94]. A major challenge or drawback in most dedicated PET scanners is the lack of transmission scanning and/or structural imaging. Apart from the benefits of synergistic anatomical-functional imaging to realize the full potential of quantitative PET imaging, anatomical imaging is commonly required [95]. To address this challenge, maximum-likelihood activity and attenuation (MLAA) algorithms [96], attenuation map generation using background radiation [97], and template-based attenuation map estimation approaches were designed [98]. In this regard, a major tendency consists in designing PET inserts, which could be employed on commercial MR, PET/MR, and PET/CT scanners. This could address the challenge of attenuation map generation, since anatomical/transmission data are readily available on the host scanners [99, 100].
It should be noted that owing to the astonishing performance of artificial intelligence-based algorithms, in particular deep learning methods, novel approaches for performing attenuation and scatter correction (ASC) on PET data without using anatomical images have been developed [101,102,103]. These include ASC in the image domain [104], attenuation correction factor estimation in the sinogram domain [104], hybrid MLAA and deep learning methods [105], and attenuation map estimation from non-ASC PET images [106]. Moreover, deep learning algorithms are employed for accurate event positioning, calibration, post-reconstruction processing, and image quality enhancement. These techniques not only boost the overall quantitative accuracy and image quality of PET scans, but could also reduce manufacturing costs [9, 107]. A recently developed maximum-likelihood attenuation correction factor (MLACF) algorithm was adapted to a dedicated brain TOF-PET scanner and implemented in the commercialized system [108]. In this method, the authors combine an MLACF method that simultaneously synthesizes the emission data and attenuation sinogram from TOF-PET data, along with a scaling technique based on anatomical features.
More aggressive efforts to achieve a coincidence time resolution of only a few tens of picoseconds and initial promising results suggest that future PET scanners can indeed rely even more on TOF to improve image quality [109]. There are ongoing debates on the technological limitations of achieving very small CTR values to reach the reconstruction-less capability. Nonetheless, more precision in TOF data leads to higher image SNR and better mitigation of limited-angle tomography.
Fortunately, in the presence of TOF, heavily compressed sinograms with axial rebinning and significant azimuthal mashing can be used without resolution loss [110]. Nevertheless, list-mode reconstruction remains a top choice for many researchers and even on commercial total-body [111, 112] and non-cylindrical PET scanners (e.g., Ref. [47]). With list-mode iterative reconstruction, an accurate physics model of the scanner, including the exact positioning of each LOR, DOI, shift-varying PSF, and TOF can be incorporated in the system matrix. Image artifacts that can be caused by asymmetrical geometries of some organ-specific dedicated PET scanners were elegantly discussed in Ref. [113], also highlighting how incorporation of a TOF can minimize such artifacts.
A new trend in high-resolution PET instrumentation includes dedicated specimen systems for intra-operative assessment of surgical samples for the assessment of lesions heterogeneity and surgical margins in three dimensions [114, 115] and organs-on-chips (OOCs) microdevices mimicking in vivo organs [116], which are finding promising applications in disease modeling and drug discovery. These developments are expected to grow in the future as there appears to be a market for these devices.
It is gratifying to see in perspective all innovative developments in PET instrumentation, from fully 3D imaging without septa to TOF, resolution recovery reconstruction, digital SiPM-based photodetectors, and more recently long axial field-of-view designs. Advances in PET instrumentation and associated image reconstruction and quantification techniques have been very swift and stimulating, and there is every reason to believe that the field will move forward more swiftly in the future with the advent of novel scintillators and photodetector technologies and the unlimited imagination of PET scientists. There is no shortage of challenges and opportunities for PET instrumentation and innovative conceptual designs.
While PET scanner technology witnessed spectacular advancements over the years, many innovative design concepts have not progressed to commercial products for various reasons. These motives can be summarized in five main aspects: fabrication cost and market readiness, service/maintenance cost, patient discomfort, suboptimal real-world performance, and difficulties associated with translating developments from academic to corporate settings. Total-body PET scanners or scanners with high temporal TOF resolution are usually expensive at the present time, which makes them less affordable in the clinic, particularly in low GDP countries [49, 107]. The extendable FOV PET design concept or compensation of the low TOF resolution through deep learning-based image quality enhancement might address this limitation [4, 8, 9]. Maintenance cost is another significant hurdle, especially for PET scanners with moveable detector configurations. Such scanners are more prone to mechanical damage, sensitive to calibration issues, and can contribute to patient discomfort, thereby increasing the maintenance cost and patient anxiety [5]. Hence, it is imperative to establish meticulous protocols for calibration and quality assurance.
Patient comfort is a fundamental consideration in PET scanner design and manufacturing. A few geometrical designs, such as spherical or dodecahedral shapes, may induce feelings of discomfort and claustrophobia [58]. Likewise, scanners with dynamic gantries could potentially cause anxiety when the detectors approach the patient [5, 117]. While these issues can be mitigated through the use of virtual reality headsets or anxiety-reducing medications, it is crucial that these factors are taken into account during the design process to ensure patient's comfort and cooperation. Another important aspect is the performance of the suggested designs in real-world scenario. Many of the suggested configurations were evaluated based on Monte Carlo simulation studies that have ignored several physical factors, which can downgrade the performance. Finally, some concepts like portable, handheld PET scanners also face significant hurdles. Despite the potential for point-of-care application, the need for radiation shielding, stringent regulatory requirements, and the difficulty of miniaturizing the necessary technology all contribute to the non-viability of these designs.
Data availability
The data used in this manuscript are available upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- PET:
-
Positron emission tomography
- AI:
-
Artificial intelligence
- DOI:
-
Depth of interaction
- TOF:
-
Time-of-flight
- LOR:
-
Line of response
- CTR:
-
Coincidence time resolution
- FWHM:
-
Full width-at-half-maximum
- LYSO:
-
Lutetium–yttrium oxyorthosilicate
- GSO:
-
Gadolinium orthosilicate
- GAGG:
-
Gadolinium aluminum gallium garnet
- LGSO:
-
Lutetium–gadolinium oxyorthosilicate
- APD:
-
Avalanche photodiode
- PSPMT:
-
Position-sensitive photomultiplayer tube
- SiPM:
-
Silicon photomultiplier
- MPPC:
-
Multi-pixel photon counter
References
Sweet WH. The uses of nuclear disintegration in the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumor. N Engl J Med. 1951;245(23):875–8.
(IMAGINE) IMiaNm. IAEA Medical imAGIng and Nuclear mEdicine (IMAGINE). https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/yaroslav.pynda/viz/IMAGINE-NAHUNET-PETScanners/PETScanners. Accessed 8 Nov 2023.
Gallach M, Mikhail Lette M, Abdel-Wahab M, Giammarile F, Pellet O, Paez D. Addressing global inequities in positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) for cancer management: a statistical model to guide strategic planning. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26: e926544.
Zein SA, Karakatsanis NA, Conti M, Nehmeh SA. Monte carlo simulation of the siemens biograph vision pet with extended axial field of view using sparse detector module rings configuration. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2021;5(3):331–42.
Sanaat A, Jamalizadeh M, Khanmohammadi H, Arabi H, Zaidi H. Active-PET: a multifunctional PET scanner with dynamic gantry size featuring high-resolution and high-sensitivity imaging: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(15):5021.
Sanaat A, Arabi H, Reza Ay M, Zaidi H. Novel preclinical PET geometrical concept using a monolithic scintillator crystal offering concurrent enhancement in spatial resolution and detection sensitivity: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(4): 045013.
Moskal P, Kowalski P, Shopa RY, et al. Simulating NEMA characteristics of the modular total-body J-PET scanner-an economic total-body PET from plastic scintillators. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(17):5015.
Sanaat A, Akhavanalaf A, Shiri I, Salimi Y, Arabi H, Zaidi H. Deep-TOF-PET: deep learning-guided generation of time-of-flight from non-TOF brain PET images in the image and projection domains. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022;43(16):5032–43.
Mehranian A, Wollenweber SD, Walker MD, et al. Deep learning-based time-of-flight (ToF) image enhancement of non-ToF PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(11):3740–9.
Shiri I, Vafaei Sadr A, Akhavan A, et al. Decentralized collaborative multi-institutional PET attenuation and scatter correction using federated deep learning. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;50:1034–50.
Sanaat A, Zaidi H. Depth of interaction estimation in a preclinical pet scanner equipped with monolithic crystals coupled to SiPMs Using a deep neural network. Appl Sci. 2020;10(14):4753.
Lewellen TK. The challenge of detector designs for PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):301–9.
Yoshida E, Obata F, Kamada K, Yamaya T. A crosshair light sharing PET detector with DOI and TOF capabilities using four-to-one coupling and single-ended readout. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2020;5(5):638–44.
Mueller F, Naunheim S, Kuhl Y, Schug D, Solf T, Schulz V. A semi-monolithic detector providing intrinsic DOI-encoding and sub-200 ps CRT TOF-capabilities for clinical PET applications. Med Phys. 2022;49(12):7469–88.
Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2011;648:S236–40.
Pizzichemi M, Stringhini G, Niknejad T, et al. A new method for depth of interaction determination in PET detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(12):4679.
Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147–57.
Lecoq P. Pushing the limits in time-of-flight PET imaging. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2017;1(6):473–85.
Schmall JP, Surti S, Karp JS. Characterization of stacked-crystal PET detector designs for measurement of both TOF and DOI. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(9):3549.
Seidel J, Vaquero JJ, Siegel S, Gandler WR, Green MV. Depth identification accuracy of a three layer phoswich PET detector module. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1999;46(3):485–90.
Wiener R, Surti S, Karp J. DOI determination by rise time discrimination in single-ended readout for TOF PET imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60(3):1478–86.
Levin CS. Design of a high-resolution and high-sensitivity scintillation crystal array for PET with nearly complete light collection. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49(5):2236–43.
Seifert S, Schaart DR. Improving the time resolution of TOF-PET detectors by double-sided readout. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2014;62(1):3–11.
Mohammadi A, Takyu S, Nishikido F, et al. Development of a dual-end detector with TOF and DOI capabilities using crystal bars segmented by subsurface laser engraving. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2019;931:236–41.
Pizzichemi M, Polesel A, Stringhini G, et al. On light sharing TOF-PET modules with depth of interaction and 157 ps FWHM coincidence time resolution. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(15): 155008.
LaBella A, Cao X, Petersen E, et al. High-resolution depth-encoding PET detector module with prismatoid light-guide array. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(10):1528–33.
Kwon SI, Ferri A, Gola A, et al. Reaching 200-ps timing resolution in a time-of-flight and depth-of-interaction positron emission tomography detector using phosphor-coated crystals and high-density silicon photomultipliers. J Med Imaging. 2016;3(4):043501–043501.
Bläckberg L, Moebius M, El Fakhri G, Mazur E, Sabet H. Light spread manipulation in scintillators using laser induced optical barriers. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2018;65(8):2208–15.
Sabet H, Kudrolli H, Singh B, Nagarkar VV. Fabricating high-resolution and high-sensitivity scintillator arrays using laser induced optical barriers. Paper presented at: 2012 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference record (NSS/MIC)2012.
González-Montoro A, Aguilar A, Cañizares G, et al. Performance study of a large monolithic LYSO PET detector with accurate photon DOI using retroreflector layers. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2017;1(3):229–37.
Carra P, Bisogni MG, Ciarrocchi E, et al. A neural network-based algorithm for simultaneous event positioning and timestamping in monolithic scintillators. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(13): 135001.
Zatcepin A, Pizzichemi M, Polesel A, et al. Improving depth-of-interaction resolution in pixellated PET detectors using neural networks. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(17): 175017.
Yoshida E, Obata F, Kamada K, Yoshikawa A, Yamaya T. Development of crosshair light sharing PET detector with TOF and DOI capabilities using fast LGSO scintillator. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(22): 225003.
Ling T, Burnett T, Lewellen T, Miyaoka R. Parametric positioning of a continuous crystal PET detector with depth of interaction decoding. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(7):1843.
Stockhoff M, Van Holen R, Vandenberghe S. Optical simulation study on the spatial resolution of a thick monolithic PET detector. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(19): 195003.
Borghi G, Tabacchini V, Seifert S, Schaart DR. Experimental validation of an efficient fan-beam calibration procedure for $ K $-nearest neighbor position estimation in monolithic scintillator detectors. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2015;62(1):57–67.
Sanaat A, Ay MR, Farahani MH, Sarkar S, Inventors; Google Patents, assignee. Altering paths of optical photons passing through a scintillator. 2021.
Berg E, Cherry SR. Using convolutional neural networks to estimate time-of-flight from PET detector waveforms. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(2):02LT01.
Bruyndonckx P, Lemaitre C, Van Der Laan D, et al. Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for localization of photons in undivided scintillator blocks for PET detectors. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2008;55(3):918–24.
Tao L, Li X, Furenlid LR, Levin CS. Deep learning based methods for gamma ray interaction location estimation in monolithic scintillation crystal detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(11): 115007.
Müller F, Schug D, Hallen P, Grahe J, Schulz V. Gradient tree boosting-based positioning method for monolithic scintillator crystals in positron emission tomography. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2018;2(5):411–21.
Van Dam HT, Seifert S, Vinke R, et al. Improved nearest neighbor methods for gamma photon interaction position determination in monolithic scintillator PET detectors. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58(5):2139–47.
Iborra A, González A, González-Montoro A, Bousse A, Visvikis D. Ensemble of neural networks for 3D position estimation in monolithic PET detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(19): 195010.
de Jong TL, Koopman D, van Dalen JA, et al. Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(8):756–64.
Moglioni M, Kraan AC, Baroni G, et al. In-vivo range verification analysis with in-beam PET data for patients treated with proton therapy at CNAO. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 929949.
Lammertsma AA. Forward to the past: the case for quantitative PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(7):1019–24.
Catana C. Development of dedicated brain PET imaging devices: recent advances and future perspectives. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(8):1044–52.
Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Pan L, Sachpekidis C. Parametric imaging with dynamic PET for oncological applications: protocols, interpretation, current applications and limitations for clinical use. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52(3):312–29.
Viswanath V, Pantel AR, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Quantifying bias and precision of kinetic parameter estimation on the PennPET Explorer, a long axial field-of-view scanner. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2020;4(6):735–49.
Ishii K, Hanaoka K, Watanabe S, et al. High-resolution silicon photomultiplier time-of-flight dedicated head PET system for clinical brain studies. J Nucl Med. 2023;64(1):153–8.
Ito M, Hong SJ, Lee JS. Positron emission tomography (PET) detectors with depth-of-interaction (DOI) capability. Biomed Eng Lett. 2011;1(2):70–81.
Peng BH, Levin CS. Recent development in PET instrumentation. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11(6):555–71.
Teimoorisichani M, Goertzen AL. Geometry optimization of a dual-layer offset detector for use in simultaneous PET/MR neuroimaging. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2019;3(3):275–84.
Badawi RD, Lodge MA, Marsden PK. Algorithms for calculating detector efficiency normalization coefficients for true coincidences in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43(1):189.
Tashima H, Yoshida E, Iwao Y, et al. First prototyping of a dedicated PET system with the hemisphere detector arrangement. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(6): 065004.
Tashima H, Yamaya T. Proposed helmet PET geometries with add-on detectors for high sensitivity brain imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(19):7205–20.
Ahmed AM, Tashima H, Yoshida E, Nishikido F, Yamaya T. Simulation study comparing the helmet-chin PET with a cylindrical PET of the same number of detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(11):4541.
Tao W, Chen G, Weng F, et al. Simulation study of a high-performance brain PET system with dodecahedral geometry. Med Phys. 2018;45(7):3297–304.
Grogg KS, Toole T, Ouyang J, et al. National electrical manufacturers association and clinical evaluation of a novel brain PET/CT scanner. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(4):646–52.
Won JY, Park H, Lee S, et al. Development and initial results of a brain pet insert for simultaneous 7-Tesla PET/MRI using an FPGA-only signal digitization method. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2021;40(6):1579–90.
Garibaldi F, Capuani S, Colilli S, et al. TOPEM: a PET-TOF endorectal probe, compatible with MRI for diagnosis and follow up of prostate cancer. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2013;702:13–5.
Catana C, Benner T, van der Kouwe A, et al. MRI-assisted PET motion correction for neurologic studies in an integrated MR-PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(1):154–61.
Sekine T, Buck A, Delso G, et al. Evaluation of atlas-based attenuation correction for integrated PET/MR in human brain: application of a head atlas and comparison to true CT-based attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(2):215–20.
Schreibmann E, Nye JA, Schuster DM, Martin DR, Votaw J, Fox T. MR-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET-MR brain imaging systems using deformable image registration. Med Phys. 2010;37(5):2101–9.
Liyanaarachchi MR, Shimazoe K, Takahashi H, Kobayashi E, Nakagawa K, Sakuma I. Prototype detector for intraoperative PET-laparoscope system with a multi-layer movable detector. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2020;958: 162788.
Liyanaarachchi MR, Shimazoe K, Takahashi H, Nakagawa K, Kobayashi E, Sakuma I. Development and evaluation of a prototype detector for an intraoperative laparoscopic coincidence imaging system with PET tracers. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021;16(1):29–39.
Goertzen AL, Stortz G, Thiessen JD, et al. First results from a high-resolution small animal SiPM PET insert for PET/MR imaging at 7T. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2016;63(5):2424–33.
Huber JS, Choong WS, Moses WW, et al. Initial results of a positron tomograph for prostate imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53(5):2653–9.
Cañizares G, Gonzalez-Montoro A, Freire M, et al. Pilot performance of a dedicated prostate PET suitable for diagnosis and biopsy guidance. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):38.
Amirrashedi M, Sarkar S, Ghadiri H, Ghafarian P, Zaidi H, Ay MR. A deep neural network to recover missing data in small animal pet imaging: comparison between sinogram- and image-domain implementations. Paper presented at: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). April 2021, 2021;13–16.
Shojaeilangari S, Schmidtlein CR, Rahmim A, Ay MR. Recovery of missing data in partial geometry PET scanners: compensation in projection space vs image space. Med Phys. 2018;45(12):5437–49.
Jong HWAMd, Boellaard R, Knoess C, et al. Correction methods for missing data in sinograms of the HRRT PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50(5):1452–6.
Liu C-C, Huang H-M. Partial-ring PET image restoration using a deep learning based method. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(22): 225014.
Freire M, Cañizares G, Echegoyen S, Gonzalez-Montoro A, Gonzalez AJ. Reducing calibration time in PET systems based on monolithic crystals. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8: 734476.
Raylman RR, Stolin A, Hays S, et al. A dedicated breast-PET/CT scanner: numerical observer study of lesion detection. Med Phys. 2022;49(12):7489–96.
Sanaat A, Zafarghandi MS, Ay MR. Design and performance evaluation of high resolution small animal PET scanner based on monolithic crystal: a simulation study. J Instrum. 2019;14(01):P01005.
Zeng T, Zheng J, Xia X, et al. Design and system evaluation of a dual-panel portable PET (DP-PET). EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8(1):47.
Niedźwiecki S, Białas P, Curceanu C, et al. J-PET: a new technology for the whole-body PET imaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:171011369. 2017.
Petersen EW, Zhao W, Goldan A. Arc-PET: Cost-effective whole-body scanner with high sensitivity and high spatial resolution. Paper presented at: 2020 IEEE Nuclear Science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 31 Oct–7 Nov. 2020; 2020.
Onishi Y, Isobe T, Ito M, Hashimoto F, Omura T, Yoshikawa E. Performance evaluation of dedicated brain PET scanner with motion correction system. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(8):746–55.
Salmon E, Bernard Ir C, Hustinx R. Pitfalls and Limitations of PET/CT in Brain Imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(6):541–51.
Zeng X, Wang Z, Tan W, et al. A conformal TOF-DOI Prism-PET prototype scanner for high resolution quantitative neuroimaging. Med Phys. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16223
Kraan AC, Berti A, Retico A, et al. Localization of anatomical changes in patients during proton therapy with in-beam PET monitoring: a voxel-based morphometry approach exploiting monte carlo simulations. Med Phys. 2022;49(1):23–40.
Ferrero V, Fiorina E, Morrocchi M, et al. Online proton therapy monitoring: clinical test of a Silicon-photodetector-based in-beam PET. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):4100.
Shao Y, Sun X, Lou K, et al. In-beam PET imaging for on-line adaptive proton therapy: an initial phantom study. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(13):3373–88.
Dendooven P, Buitenhuis HJ, Diblen F, et al. Short-lived positron emitters in beam-on PET imaging during proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(23):8923–47.
Tashima H, Yoshida E, Iwao Y, et al. Development of a multiuse human-scale single-ring openPET system. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2021;5(6):807–16.
Nadig V, Herrmann K, Mottaghy FM, Schulz V. Hybrid total-body pet scanners-current status and future perspectives. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):445–59.
Leung EK, Berg E, Omidvari N, et al. Quantitative accuracy in total-body imaging using the uEXPLORER PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(20):5008.
Daube-Witherspoon ME, Pantel AR, Pryma DA, Karp JS. Total-body PET: a new paradigm for molecular imaging. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1140):20220357.
Karakatsanis NA, Nehmeh MH, Conti M, Bal G, González AJ, Nehmeh SA. Physical performance of adaptive axial FOV PET scanners with a sparse detector block rings or a checkerboard configuration. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(10):5010.
Zein SA, Karakatsanis NA, Issa M, Haj-Ali AA, Nehmeh SA. Physical performance of a long axial field-of-view PET scanner prototype with sparse rings configuration: a monte carlo simulation study. Med Phys. 2020;47(4):1949–57.
Xie Q, Wan L, Cao X, Xiao P. Conceptual design and simulation study of an ROI-focused panel-PET scanner. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8): e72109.
Emami A, Ghadiri H, Ghafarian P, Geramifar P, Ay MR. Performance evaluation of developed dedicated breast PET scanner and improvement of the spatial resolution by wobbling: a monte carlo study. Jpn J Radiol. 2020;38(8):790–9.
Naganawa M, Gallezot JD, Rossano S, Carson RE. Quantitative PET imaging in drug development: estimation of target occupancy. Bull Math Biol. 2019;81(9):3508–41.
Mehranian A, Arabi H, Zaidi H. Quantitative analysis of MRI-guided attenuation correction techniques in time-of-flight brain PET/MRI. Neuroimage. 2016;130:123–33.
Omidvari N, Cheng L, Leung EK, et al. Lutetium background radiation in total-body PET-A simulation study on opportunities and challenges in PET attenuation correction. Front Nucl Med. 2022;2: 963067.
Arabi H, Koutsouvelis N, Rouzaud M, Miralbell R, Zaidi H. Atlas-guided generation of pseudo-CT images for MRI-only and hybrid PET-MRI-guided radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(17):6531–52.
Giovacchini G, Giovannini E, Riondato M, Ciarmiello A. PET/MR tomographs: a review with technical radiochemical and clinical perspectives. Curr Radiopharm. 2017;10(3):184–94.
Bogdanovic B, Solari EL, Villagran Asiares A, et al. PET/MR technology: advancement and challenges. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52(3):340–55.
Arabi H, Zaidi H. Applications of artificial intelligence and deep learning in molecular imaging and radiotherapy. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2020;4(1):17.
Arabi H, AkhavanAllaf A, Sanaat A, Shiri I, Zaidi H. The promise of artificial intelligence and deep learning in PET and SPECT imaging. Phys Med. 2021;83:122–37.
Arabi H, Bortolin K, Ginovart N, Garibotto V, Zaidi H. Deep learning-guided joint attenuation and scatter correction in multitracer neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020;41(13):3667–79.
Mostafapour S, Gholamiankhah F, Dadgar H, Arabi H, Zaidi H. Feasibility of deep learning-guided attenuation and scatter correction of whole-body 68Ga-PSMA PET studies in the image domain. Clin Nucl Med. 2021;46(8):609–15.
Hwang D, Kim KY, Kang SK, et al. Improving the accuracy of simultaneously reconstructed activity and attenuation maps using deep learning. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(10):1624–9.
Dong X, Wang T, Lei Y, et al. Synthetic CT generation from non-attenuation corrected PET images for whole-body PET imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(21): 215016.
Jaliparthi G, Martone PF, Stolin AV, Raylman RR. Deep residual-convolutional neural networks for event positioning in a monolithic annular PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(14):5008.
Mizuta T, Kobayashi T, Yamakawa Y, et al. Initial evaluation of a new maximum-likelihood attenuation correction factor-based attenuation correction for time-of-flight brain PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(4):420–6.
Lecoq P, Morel C, Prior JO, et al. Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(21):21RM01.
Panin VY, Aykac M, Hong I. TOF data compression on high time resolution clinical scanner. Paper presented at: 2018 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference proceedings (NSS/MIC); 10–17 Nov. 2018, 2018.
Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, et al. First human imaging studies with the explorer total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):299–303.
Surti S, Karp JS. Impact of detector design on imaging performance of a long axial field-of-view, whole-body PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(13):5343.
Moliner L, Ilisie V, Gonzalez AJ, et al. TOF studies for dedicated PET with open geometries. J Instrum. 2019;14(02):C02006.
Muraglia L, Mattana F, Travaini LL, et al. First live-experience session with PET/CT specimen imager: a pilot analysis in prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumor. Biomedicines. 2023;11(2):645.
Debacker JM, Schelfhout V, Brochez L, et al. High-resolution (18)F-FDG PET/CT for assessing three-dimensional intraoperative margins status in malignancies of the head and neck, a proof-of-concept. J Clin Med. 2021;10(16):3737.
Clement C, Birindelli G, Pizzichemi M, et al. Concept development of an on-chip PET system. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9(1):38.
Yuxuan Z, Wai-Hoi W, Hongdi L, et al. Performance characteristics of a high resolution oncologic transformable PET in brain/breast and whole-body modes. Paper presented at: 2007 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record. 26 Oct–3 Nov. 2007, 2007.
Brownell GL. A history of positron imaging. Physics research laboratory, Massachusetts general hospital, MIT. 1999;1. https://websites.umich.edu/~ners580/ners-bioe_481/lectures/pdfs/Brownell1999_historyPET.pdf
Ter-Pogossian MM, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA. A positron-emission transaxial tomograph for nuclear imaging (PETT). Radiology. 1975;114(1):89–98.
Townsend DW, Wensveen M, Byars LG, et al. A rotating PET scanner using BGO block detectors: design, performance and applications. J Nucl Med. 1993;34(8):1367–76.
Li H, Wong WH, Baghaei H, et al. The engineering and initial results of a transformable low-cost high-resolution PET camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54(5):1583–8.
Li L, Gu XY, Li DW, et al. Performance evaluation and initial clinical test of the positron emission mammography system (PEMi). IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2015;62(5):2048–56.
Tashima H, Yoshida E, Nishikido F, et al. Development of the helmet-chin PET prototype. Paper presented at: 2015 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 31 Oct.–7 Nov. 2015, 2015.
Wessel L. World's first full-body PET scanner could aid drug development, monitor environmental toxins. 2017. https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-first-full-body-pet-scanner-could-aid-drug-development-monitor-environmental. Accessed 8 Nov 2023.
Moliner L, Rodríguez-Alvarez MJ, Catret JV, González A, Ilisie V, Benlloch JM. NEMA performance evaluation of careMiBrain dedicated brain PET and Comparison with the whole-body and dedicated brain PET systems. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):15484.
Sabbatini RME. 1997. https://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/pet/pet_hist.htm. Accessed 8 Nov 2023.
Nan Z, Thompson CJ, Cayouette F, Jolly D, Kecani S. A prototype modular detector design for high resolution positron emission mammography imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50(5):1624–9.
Tsuda T, Murayama H, Kitamura K, et al. A four-layer depth of interaction detector block for small animal PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2004;51(5):2537–42.
Kishimoto A, Kataoka J, Kato T, et al. Development of a dual-sided readout DOI-PET module using large-area monolithic MPPC-arrays. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60(1):38–43.
Mohammadi A, Yoshida E, Nishikido F, et al. Development of a dual-ended readout detector with segmented crystal bars made using a subsurface laser engraving technique. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(2): 025019.
Sanaat A, Ashrafi-Belgabad A, Zaidi H. Polaroid-PET: a PET scanner with detectors fitted with Polaroid for filtering unpolarized optical photons-a Monte Carlo simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(23): 235044.
Yoshida E, Obata F, Kamada K, yamaya T. development of single-ended readout DOI detector with quadrisected crystals. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2020;4(5):563–9.
Lee MS, Cates JW, Gonzalez-Montoro A, Levin CS. High-resolution time-of-flight PET detector with 100 ps coincidence time resolution using a side-coupled phoswich configuration. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(12): 125007.
Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Performance of a brain PET camera based on anger-logic gadolinium oxyorthosilicate detectors. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(8):1340–9.
Yoshida E, Kobayashi A, Yamaya T, et al. The jPET-D4: Performance evaluation of four-layer DOI-PET scanner using the NEMA NU2–2001 standard. Paper presented at: 2006 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record; 29 Oct.–1 Nov. 2006, 2006.
de Jong HW, van Velden FH, Kloet RW, Buijs FL, Boellaard R, Lammertsma AA. Performance evaluation of the ECAT HRRT: an LSO-LYSO double layer high resolution, high sensitivity scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(5):1505–26.
Moghaddam NM, Karimian A, Mostajaboddavati SM, Vondervoort E, Sossi V. Preliminary design and simulation of a spherical brain PET system (SBPET) with liquid xenon as scintillator. Nukleonika. 2009;54(1):33–8.
Yamamoto S, Honda M, Oohashi T, Shimizu K, Senda M. Development of a brain PET system, PET-Hat: a wearable PET system for brain research. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58(3):668–73.
Kolb A, Wehrl HF, Hofmann M, et al. Technical performance evaluation of a human brain PET/MRI system. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1776–88.
Jung J, Choi Y, Jung JH, Kim S, Ki Chun I, Hyeok-jun C. Performance evaluation of GAPD-based brain PET. Paper presented at: 2013 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (2013 NSS/MIC); 27 Oct.–2 Nov. 2013, 2013.
Zhiguang W, Wangxin Y, Shuping X. A dedicated PET system for human brain and head/neck imaging. Paper presented at: 2013 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (2013 NSS/MIC); 27 Oct.–2 Nov. 2013, 2013.
Bauer CE, Brefczynski-Lewis J, Marano G, et al. Concept of an upright wearable positron emission tomography imager in humans. Brain Behav. 2016;6(9): e00530.
Jung J, Choi Y, Jung JH, Kim S, Im KC. Performance evaluation of neuro-PET using silicon photomultipliers. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2016;819:182–7.
Bartlett E, Lesanpezeshki M, Anishchenko S, et al. P329. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with the portable brain-dedicated cerePET scanner: validation of regional-and voxel-wise quantification relative to a stationary scanner. Biol Psychiatry. 2022;91(9):S220.
Schmidtlein CR, Turner JN, Thompson MO, et al. Performance modeling of a wearable brain PET (BET) camera. Paper presented at: medical imaging 2016: biomedical applications in molecular, structural, and Functional Imaging. 2016.
Watanabe M, Saito A, Isobe T, et al. Performance evaluation of a high-resolution brain PET scanner using four-layer MPPC DOI detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(17):7148–66.
Benlloch JM, González AJ, Pani R, et al. The MINDVIEW project: first results. Eur Psychiatry. 2018;50:21–7.
Chang CM, Lee BJ, Grant AM, Groll AN, Levin CS. Performance study of a radio-frequency field-penetrable PET insert for simultaneous PET/MRI. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2018;2(5):422–31.
Gaudin E, Toussaint M, Thibaudeau C, et al. Simulation studies of the SAVANT high resolution dedicated brain PET scanner using individually coupled APD detectors and DOI encoding. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(supplement 1):531.
Gonzalez AJ, Gonzalez-Montoro A, Vidal LF, et al. Initial results of the MINDView PET Insert Inside the 3T mMR. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2019;3(3):343–51.
Ahnen ML, Fischer J, Kuegler N, et al. Performance of the ultra-compact fully integrated brain PET system BPET. Paper presented at: 2020 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 31 Oct.–7 Nov. 2020, 2020.
Yoshida E, Tashima H, Akamatsu G, et al. 245 ps-TOF brain-dedicated PET prototype with a hemispherical detector arrangement. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(14):145008.
Carson R, Berg E, Badawi R, et al. Design of the NeuroEXPLORER, a next-generation ultra-high performance human brain PET imager. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(supplement 1):1120–1120.
Kuang Z, Sang Z, Wang X, et al. Progress of SIAT bPET: an MRI compatible brain PET scanner with high spatial resolution and high sensitivity. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(supplement 2):2437–2437.
Gonzalez-Montoro A, Barbera J, Sanchez D, et al. A new brain dedicated PET scanner with 4D detector information. Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems. 2022;18(1):107–19.
Akamatsu G, Takahashi M, Tashima H, et al. Performance evaluation of VRAIN: a brain-dedicated PET with a hemispherical detector arrangement. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(22):225011.
Masturzo L, Carra P, Erba PA, et al. Monte carlo characterization of the trimage brain PET system. J Imaging. 2022;8(2):21.
Morimoto-Ishikawa D, Hanaoka K, Watanabe S, et al. Evaluation of the performance of a high-resolution time-of-flight PET system dedicated to the head and breast according to NEMA NU 2–2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9(1):88.
Wang Y, Herbst R, Abbaszadeh S. Development and characterization of modular readout design for two-panel head-and-neck dedicated PET system based on CZT detectors. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2022;6(5):517–21.
Samanta S, Jiang J, Hamdi M, et al. Performance comparison of a dedicated total breast PET system with a clinical whole-body PET system: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(11): 115004.
Krishnamoorthy S, Morales E, Ashmanskas WJ, et al. PET imaging performance of a dedicated breast PET-DBT (BPET-DBT) scanner. Paper presented at: 2021 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 16–23 Oct. 2021, 2021.
Turkington TG, Majewski S, Weisenberger AG, et al. A large field of view positron emission mammography imager. Paper presented at: 2002 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record; 10–16 Nov. 2002, 2002.
Akamatsu G, Yoshida E, Tashima H, Ito S, Takahashi M, Yamaya T. First prototype of a novel dual round-edge detector arrangement for breast PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(supplement 1):1707–1707.
Shi Y, Wang Y, Zhou J, et al. DH-Mammo PET: a dual-head positron emission mammography system for breast imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(20): 205004.
Moliner L, Zhang C, Alamo J, et al. Biplanar breast PET: preliminary evaluation. Paper presented at: 15th International workshop on breast imaging (IWBI2020)2020.
Luo W, Dahlbom M, Matthews CG. A phantom comparison study for measuring PEM scanner sensitivity. Paper presented at: 2009 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record (NSS/MIC); 24 Oct.–1 Nov. 2009, 2009.
Zhang Y, Ramirez RA, Li H, et al. The System Design, Engineering Architecture, and Preliminary Results of a Lower-Cost High-Sensitivity High-Resolution Positron Emission Mammography Camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2010;57(1):104–10.
Furuta M, Kitamura K, Ohi J, et al. Basic evaluation of a C-shaped breast PET scanner. Paper presented at: 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 24 Oct.-1 Nov. 2009, 2009.
Wang GC, Huber JS, Moses WW, Qi J, Choong WS. Characterization of the LBNL PEM camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53(3):1129–35.
Abrantes M, Almeida P, Botelho F, et al. ClearPEM scanners: Performance results and studies in preclinical environment. Paper presented at: 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record; 23–29 Oct. 2011, 2011.
Wu Y, Bowen SL, Yang K, et al. PET characteristics of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner prototype. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(13):4273.
Ravindranath B, Junnarkar SS, Purschke ML, et al. Results from prototype II of the BNL simultaneous PET-MRI dedicated breast scanner. Paper presented at: 2009 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record (NSS/MIC); 24 Oct.-1 Nov. 2009, 2009.
Miyake KK, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, et al. Performance evaluation of a new dedicated breast PET scanner using NEMA NU4-2008 standards. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(7):1198–203.
Ferrero A, Peng Q, Burkett GW Jr, Sumanasena B, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Preliminary performance characterization of DbPET2.1, a PET scanner dedicated to the imaging of the breast and extremities. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2015;1(1):015202.
García Hernández T, Vicedo González A, Ferrer Rebolleda J, et al. Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2261–72.
Zeng C, Kinahan PE, Qian H, Harrison RL, Champley KM, MacDonald LR. Simulation study of quantitative precision of the PET/X dedicated breast PET scanner. J Med Imaging. 2017;4(4):045502–045502.
Raylman RR, Van Kampen W, Stolin AV, et al. A dedicated breast-PET/CT scanner: evaluation of basic performance characteristics. Med Phys. 2018;45(4):1603–13.
Nakanishi K, Yamamoto S, Watabe H, Abe S, Fujita N, Kato K. Development of a circular shape Si-PM-based detector ring for breast-dedicated PET system. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2018;880:118–24.
Richard F, Joel SK. Dedicated PET scanners for breast imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42(12):2463.
Murthy K, Aznar M, Bergman AM, et al. Positron emission mammographic instrument: initial results. Radiology. 2000;215(1):280–5.
Sportelli G, Belcari N, Guerra P, et al. Reprogrammable acquisition architecture for dedicated positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2011;58(3):695–702.
Doshi NK, Silverman RW, Shao Y, Cherry SR. maxPET, a dedicated mammary and axillary region PET imaging system for breast cancer. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2001;48(3):811–5.
Freese DL, Vandenbroucke A, Reynolds PD, et al. Spatial resolution uniformity, isotropy, and the effect of depth of interaction information in a 1mm3 resolution, limited-angle PET system. Paper presented at: 2014 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 8–15 Nov. 2014, 2014.
Stiles J, Baldassi B, Bubon O, et al. Evaluation of a high-sensitivity organ-targeted PET camera. Sensors. 2022;22(13):4678.
Huber JS, Derenzo SE, Qi J, Moses WW, Huesman RH, Budinger TF. Conceptual design of a compact positron tomograph for prostate imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2001;48(4):1506–11.
Turkington TG, Smith MF, Hawk TC, et al. PET prostate imaging with small planar detectors. Paper presented at: IEEE symposium conference record nuclear science 2004; 16–22 Oct. 2004, 2004.
Huh SS, Rogers WL, Clinthorne NH. An investigation of an intra-operative PET imaging probe. Paper presented at: 2007 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record; 26 Oct.-3 Nov. 2007, 2007.
Majewski S, Proffitt J, Inventors; Google patents, assignee. Dedicated mobile high resolution prostate PET imager with an insertable transrectal probe. Publication No US20100187424A1, US Patents. 2010. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100187424A1/en
Majewski S, Stolin A, Delfino E, Martone P, Proffitt J. High resolution fast stereotactic PET imager for prostate biopsy. Paper presented at: 2011 IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record; 23–29 Oct. 2011, 2011.
Zvolský M. EndoTOFPET-US—a miniaturised calorimeter for endoscopic time-of-flight positron emission tomography. J Phys Conf Ser. 2015;587(1): 012068.
Hsu B, Bristow D, Gabel T, Oliverio J. Performance evaluation of a new cardiac dedicated PET scanner incorporating wobble technology and listmode capability for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). J Nucl Med. 2010;51(supplement 2):413–413.
Oliver S, Moliner L, Ilisie V, Benlloch JM, Rodríguez-Álvarez MJ. Simulation study for designing a dedicated cardiac TOF-PET system. Sensors. 2020;20(5):1311.
Akamatsu G, Tashima H, Takyu S, et al. Design consideration of compact cardiac TOF-PET systems: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(7): 074002.
Wienhard K, Schmand M, Casey ME, et al. The ECAT HRRT: performance and first clinical application of the new high resolution research tomograph. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2002;49(1):104–10.
Yamaya T, Hagiwara N, Obi T, et al. DOI-PET image reconstruction with accurate system modeling that reduces redundancy of the imaging system. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50(5):1404–9.
Feng T, He L, Schmall J, Li H. The effect of a partial shoulder PET ring in the neuroexplorer design. Paper presented at: 2021 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC); 16–23 Oct. 2021, 2021.
MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM flex solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1666–75.
Li M, Yockey B, Abbaszadeh S. Design study of a dedicated head and neck cancer PET system. IEEE trans radiat plasma med sci. 2020;4(4):489–97.
Shi H, Du D, Xu J, Su Z, Peng Q. Design study of dedicated brain PET with polyhedron geometry. Technol Health Care. 2015;23(Suppl 2):S615-623.
Song H, Lee S-J, Park C, Kang IS, Kim KB, Chung YH. Feasibility of adjustable-gantry PET system using advanced DOI method. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A: Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip. 2020;953: 163087.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Grant SNRF 320030_176052 and the Private Foundation of Geneva University Hospitals under Grant RC-06-01. The authors would like to thank Drs. Craig Levin, Shouping Zhu, Mohammad Reza Ay, Crispin Williams, Fernando E Boada, Antonio J. González, Guenther Dissertori, Christian Ritzer, Suleman Surti, Pawel Moska, Amirhossein Goldan, and Roger Lecomte for providing useful feedback on our survey. The authors thank Navid Zeraatkar, and Mohammadreza Teimoorisichani for their valuable insights and guidance in writing this review.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Geneva.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sanaat, A., Amini, M., Arabi, H. et al. The quest for multifunctional and dedicated PET instrumentation with irregular geometries. Ann Nucl Med 38, 31–70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-023-01881-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-023-01881-6