Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec;3(1):5.
doi: 10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7. Epub 2016 Feb 25.

Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR

Anna M Karlberg  1 , Oddbjørn Sæther  2 , Live Eikenes  3 , Pål Erik Goa  4   5
Affiliations

Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR

Anna M Karlberg et al. EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Integrated clinical whole-body PET/MR systems were introduced in 2010. In order to bring this technology into clinical usage, it is of great importance to compare the performance with the well-established PET/CT. The aim of this study was to evaluate PET performance, with focus on image quality, on Siemens Biograph mMR (PET/MR) and Siemens Biograph mCT (PET/CT).

Methods: A direct quantitative comparison of the performance characteristics between the mMR and mCT system was performed according to National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU 2-2007 protocol. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate and image quality were evaluated. The evaluation was supplemented with additional standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements.

Results: The spatial resolution was similar for the two systems. Average sensitivity was higher for the mMR (13.3 kcps/MBq) compared to the mCT system (10.0 kcps/MBq). Peak noise equivalent count rate (NECR) was slightly higher for the mMR (196 kcps @ 24.4 kBq/mL) compared to the mCT (186 kcps @ 30.1 kBq/mL). Scatter fractions in the clinical activity concentration range yielded lower values for the mCT (34.9 %) compared to those for the mMR (37.0 %). Best image quality of the systems resulted in approximately the same mean hot sphere contrast and a difference of 19 percentage points (pp) in mean cold contrast, in favour of the mCT. In general, point spread function (PSF) increased hot contrast and time of flight (TOF) increased both hot and cold contrast. Highest hot contrast for the smallest sphere (10 mm) was achieved with the combination of TOF and PSF on the mCT. Lung residual error was higher for the mMR (22 %) than that for the mCT (17 %), with no effect of PSF. With TOF, lung residual error was reduced to 8 % (mCT). SUV was accurate for both systems, but PSF caused overestimations for the 13-, 17- and 22-mm spheres.

Conclusions: Both systems proved good performance characteristics, and the PET image quality of the mMR was close to that of the mCT. Differences between the systems were mainly due to the TOF possibility on the mCT, which resulted in an overall better image quality, especially for the most challenging settings with higher background activity and small uptake volumes.

Keywords: PET performance; PET/CT; PET/MR; Quantitative image quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
NEMA phantom ROIs. Typical ROIs drawn by Siemens NEMA image quality software over hot (red) and cold (dark blue) spheres, lung insert (light blue) and background (green)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Performance measurements. NEMA NECR (a) and NEMA scatter fraction (b) for the Biograph mCT and mMR system
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Contrast vs background variability with increasing number of iterations (2–8, left to right) and with different reconstruction settings for the Biograph mCT and mMR system; 10-mm hot sphere, 1:8 ratio (a), 37-mm cold sphere, 1:8 ratio (b), 10-mm hot sphere, 1:4 ratio (c) and 37-mm cold sphere, 1:4 ratio (d)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Contrast to background variability ratios for the smallest (10 mm) sphere and 2–8 iterations, with different reconstruction settings for the Biograph mCT and mMR system. 1:8 ratio (a) and 1:4 ratio (b)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Lung residual error with different reconstruction settings for the Biograph mCT and mMR system
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
SUV80 for hot spheres (1:8 background to hot sphere activity concentration) and different reconstruction settings for the Biograph mCT and mMR system. The red line corresponds to theoretical SUV
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, Judenhofer MS. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging? Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:199–208. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.02.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1147–1157. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burgos N, Cardoso MJ, Thielemans K, Modat M, Pedemonte S, Dickson J, et al. Attenuation correction synthesis for hybrid PET-MR scanners: application to brain studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33:2332–2341. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2340135. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Schmidt H, Scholkopf B, Pichler BJ. MR-based PET attenuation correction for PET/MR imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43:45–59. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2012.08.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Muller M, Brendle C, Sauter A, Spengler W, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging—pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264:551–558. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111942. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources