Back
 IJMPCERO  Vol.7 No.4 , November 2018
Feasibility of High Spatial Resolution Working Modes for Clinical PET Scanner
Abstract: Contemporary PET scanners for clinical use have spatial-resolution of 4 - 5 mm, caused by fundamental factors in medical imaging: detector sizes, free path of positrons, and non-colinearity uncertainty of annihilation photon-pairs. The drawback in resolution significantly restrained the sensitivity of PET in imaging small lesions, which could be either early-stage cancers or small metastasis. In this study, the principle for a novel scanning mode to acquire high spatial-resolution images is proposed for clinical PET scanners. The concept of equivalent position was first proposed as different angular orientations of the scanner ring, at which comparable images could be achieved. Due to this concept, a typical static PET scan can be separated into m (m ≥ 2) equivalent sub-scans at different equivalent positions, when the scanner ring is systematically adjusted to m equivalent-positions of equal distance within one detector size. In this case each detector is virtually divided into m equal sub-detectors, without physical minimizing the detector size, and imaging contributions from every 1/m part of the detector can be determined by an analytically matrix, since there are m variables and m sub-scans. This novel concept is quite feasible to contemporary design because the high spatial resolution working modes (m ≥ 2) only demand the scanner to be slightly adjustable to other angular orientations. Adding high spatial resolutions modes to the scanner only has trifling influence on contrast resolutions as all imaging events at each sub-scan are independent. The time for performing a high-resolution scan could be comparable to a typical PET scan, as long as the Poisson noises are insignificant to low-uptake voxels. As a result, for a typical scanner design e.g. 80 cm in diameter with 18F as tracers, the spatial resolution of double sub-scans (m = 2) is 2.56 mm, and 2.19 mm for triple sub-scans (m = 3), which are significant improvements. The novelty of high spatial resolution design is compatible to digital PET or any other technological evolutions.
Cite this paper: Wang, K. (2018) Feasibility of High Spatial Resolution Working Modes for Clinical PET Scanner. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 7, 539-552. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.74045.
References

[1]   Amit, A., et al. (2013) FDG PET/CT in Monitoring Response to Treatment in Gynecological Malignancies. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 25, 17-22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32835a7e96

[2]   Dalla Palma, M., et al. (2012) PET/CT Imaging in Gynecologic Malignancies: A Critical Overview of Its Clinical Impact and Our Retrospective Single Center Analysis. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 83, 84-98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.10.002

[3]   Chen, K., et al. (2011) Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Cancer Biology, Current Status and Future Prospects. Seminars in Oncology, 38, 70-86.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.11.005

[4]   Lammering, G., et al. (2010) The Use of FDG-PET to Target Tumor by Radiotherapy. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 186, 471-481.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-010-2150-1

[5]   Nestle, U., et al. (2009) Biological Imaging in Radiation Therapy: Role of Positron Emission Tomography. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 54, R1-R25.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/1/R01

[6]   Takahashi, N., et al. (2007) The Roles of PET and PET/CT in the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer. Oncology, 72, 226-233.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000112946

[7]   Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A., et al. (2006) Quantitative Studies Using Position Emission Tomography (PET) for the Diagnosis and Therapy Planning of Oncological Patients. Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 9, 10-21.

[8]   Macapinlac, H.A. (2004) FDG PET and PET/CT Imaging in Lymphoma and Melanoma. The Cancer Journal, 10, 262-270.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00130404-200407000-00007

[9]   Spence, A.M., et al. (2003) Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Brain Tumors. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America, 13, 717-739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1052-5149(03)00097-2

[10]   Khan, N., et al. (2003) PET in the Follow-Up of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. British Journal of Radiology, 76, 690-695.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/31538331

[11]   El Naqa, I., et al. (2007) Concurrent Multimodality Image Segmentation by Active Contours for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Medical Physics, 34, 4738-4749.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2799886

[12]   Yoo, H.J., et al. (2015) Integrated Whole Body MR/PET: Where Are We. Korean Journal of Radiology, 16, 32-49.
https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.32

[13]   An, H.J., et al. (2016) MRI-Based Attenuation Correction for PET/MRI Using Multiphase Level-Set Method. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 57, 587-593.
https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.163550

[14]   Schöder, H. (2007) Screening for Cancer with PET and PET/CT: Potential and Limitations. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 48, 4S-18S.

[15]   Moses, W.W., et al. (1993) Empirical Observation on Performance Degradation in Positron Emission Tomographs Utilizing Block Detectors. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 34, 101 p.

[16]   Derenzo, S.E., et al. (1981) Imaging Properties of a Positron Tomography with 280 BGO Crystals. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 28, 81-89.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1981.4331144

[17]   De Jong, H.W., et al. (2007) Performance Evaluation of the ECAT HRRT: An LSO-LYSO Double Layer High Resolution, High Sensitivity Scanner. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 52, 1505-1526.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/5/019

[18]   Alessio, A.M., et al. (2006) Modeling and Incorporation of System Response Functions in 3-D Whole Body PET. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 25, 828-837.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2006.873222

[19]   Cho, Z.H., et al. (1975) Positron Ranges Obtained from Biomedically Important Positron-Emitting Radionuclides. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 16, 1174-1175.

[20]   Derenzo, S.E., et al. (1982) Dynamic Positron-Emission Tomography in Man Using Small Bismuth Germinate Crystals. 6th International Conference on Positron Annihilation, Ft. Worth, 3-7 April 1982, 1-11.

[21]   Levin, C.S., et al. (1999) Calculation of Positron Range and Its Effect on the Fundamental Limit of Positron Emission Tomography System Spatial Resolution. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 44, 781-799.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/44/3/019

[22]   Colombino, P., et al. (1965) Study of Positronium in Water and Ice from 22 to -144 °C. Nuovo Cimento, 38, 707-723.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02748591

[23]   Partridge, M., et al. (2006) The Effect of β+ Energy on Performance of a Small PET Camera. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 568, 933-936.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.09.035

[24]   Karshenboim, S.G. (2003) Precision Study of Positronium: Testing Bound State QED Theory. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 3879-3896.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X04020142

[25]   Czarnecki, A., et al. (2000) Decays of Positronium. Proceedings of the International Workshop on High Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory, Vol. 14, Tver, 14-20 September 2000, 538-544.

[26]   DeBenedetti, S., et al. (1954) The Three-Photon Annihilation of Positrons and Electrons. Physical Review, 94, 955-959.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.94.955

[27]   Jones, T. and Townsend, D. (2017) History and Future Technique Innovation in Positron Emission Tomography. Journal of Medical Imaging (Bellingham), 4, Article ID: 011013.
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.011013

[28]   Jha, A., et al. (2015) NEMA NU-2 2012 Performance Evaluation of Discovery IQ: A High Sensitivity PET System. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 56, 1847.

[29]   Frach, T., Prescher, G., Degenhardt, C., et al. (2009) The Digital Silicon Photomultiplier—Principle of Operation and Intrinsic Detector Performance. Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Orlando, 24 October-1 November 2009, 1959-1965.
https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2009.5402143

[30]   Degenhardt, C., Prescher, G., Frach, T., et al. (2009) The Digital Silicon Photomultiplier—A Novel Sensor for the Detection of Scintillation Light. Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Orlando, 24 October-1 November 2009, 2383-2386.

[31]   Degenhardt, C., Rodrigues, P., Trindade, A., et al. (2012) Performance Evaluation of a Prototype Positron Emission Tomography Scanner Using Digital Photon Counters (DPC). Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record, Anaheim, 27 October-3 November 2012, 2820-2824.

[32]   Nguyen, N.C., Vercher-Conejero, J.I., Sattar, A., et al. (2015) Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of a Digital PET Prototype in Patients with Oncologic Diseases: Initial Experience and Comparison with Analog PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 56, 1378-1385.
https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.148338

 
 
Top