Cited by 122Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsRadiation Dose and Imaging

Performance evaluation of the 5‐Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2‐2012 Standard

Open access
Pan, Tinsu, Einstein, Samuel A., Kappadath, Srinivas Cheenu, Grogg, Kira S., Lois Gomez, Cristina, Alessio, Adam M., Hunter, William C., El Fakhri, Georges +2 more·2019·Medical Physics

Abstract

The GE Discovery MI PET/CT system has a modular digital detector design allowing three, four, or five detector block rings that extend the axial field‐of‐view (FOV) from 15 to 25 cm in 5 cm increments. This study investigated the performance of the 5‐ring system and compared it to 3‐ and 4‐ring systems; the GE Discovery IQ system that uses conventional photomultiplier tubes; and the GE Signa PET/MR system that has a reduced transaxial FOV. Methods: PET performance was evaluated at three different institutions. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, counting rate performance, accuracy, and image quality were measured in accordance with National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2‐2012 standards. The mean energy resolution, mean timing resolution, and PET/CT subsystem alignment were also measured. Phantoms were used to determine the effects of varying acquisition time and reconstruction parameters on image quality. Retrospective patient scans were reconstructed with various scan durations to evaluate the impact on image quality. Results: Results from all three institutions were similar. Radial/tangential/axial full width at half maximum spatial resolution measurements using the filtered back projection algorithm were 4.3/4.3/5.0 mm, 5.5/4.6/6.5 mm, and 7.4/5.0/6.6 mm at 1, 10, and 20 cm from the center of the FOV, respectively. Measured sensitivity at the center of the FOV (20.84 cps/kBq) was significantly higher than systems with reduced axial FOV. The peak noise‐equivalent counting rate was 266.3 kcps at 20.8 kBq/ml, with a corresponding scatter fraction of 40.2%. The correction accuracy for count losses up to the peak noise‐equivalent counting rate was 3.6%. For the 10‐, 13‐, 17‐, 22‐, 28‐, and 37‐mm spheres, contrast recoveries in the image quality phantom were measured to be 46.2%, 54.3%, 66.1%, 71.1%, 85.3%, and 89.3%, respectively. The mean energy and timing resolution were 9.55% and 381.7 ps, respectively. Phantom and patient images demonstrated excellent image quality, even at short acquisition times or low injected activity. Conclusion: Compared to other PET/CT models, the extended axial FOV improved the overall PET performance of the 5‐ring GE Discovery MI scanner. This system offers the potential to reduce scan times or injected activities through increased sensitivity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.13576

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A SiPM system with low relative coverage (<60%) and 382 ps timing resolution can have similar or slightly inferior sensitivity to a bismuth germanate (BGO) PMT scanner with similar axial FOV (20.8 vs. 23.3 cps/kBq).

    “If, for example, a SiPM system with low relative coverage of <60% and a modest timing resolution of 382 ps [44,45] is compared to a bismuth germanate (BGO) PMT scanner with similar axial FOV length [46], the SiPM system’s sensitivity can be similar or even slightly inferior (20.8 vs. 23.3 cps/kBq) [45].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Results (PET performance evaluation; page unavailable) report 20.84 cps/kBq sensitivity and approximately 382 ps timing resolution for the SiPM scanner. The Discussion compares it with a BGO/PMT scanner of similar axial FOV and says the BGO scanner’s sensitivity was slightly higher. The passages do not establish the claimed <60% relative coverage or the BGO scanner’s specific value of 23.3 cps/kBq. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • System sensitivity increases quadratically with axial field of view (FOV); for example, an approximately 80% sensitivity gain for a 33% axial FOV increase.

    “Most importantly, these scanners should feature a similar length of the axial field of view (FOV) because the system sensitivity (cps/kBq), a main determinant of the SNR, increases quadratically with an increase in axial FOV (e.g., system sensitivity gain of approx. 80% for an axial FOV increase of 33%) [45].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [45]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 122

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]Surti S, Karp JS. Advances in time-of-flight PET. Phys Medica. 2016; 32: 12– 22. PMC4747834 26778577
  2. [2]Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong Shan, Application and Evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010; 29: 938– 949. 20199927 PMC2903538
  3. [3]MacDonald LR, Harrison RL, Alessio AM, Hunter WCJ, Lewellen TK, Kinahan PE. Effective count rates for PET scanners with reduced and extended axial field of view. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56: 3629– 3643. 21610291 PMC3148837
  4. [4]Schatka I, Weiberg D, Reichelt S, A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of novel continuous bed motion versus traditional bed position whole-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43: 711– 717. 26546010
  5. [5]van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44: 4– 16. 28687866 PMC5541089
  6. [6]Baratto L, Park SY, Hatami N, 18F-FDG silicon photomultiplier PET/CT: A pilot study comparing semi-quantitative measurements with standard PET/CT. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0178936. 28582472 PMC5459477
  7. [8]Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Sakata M, Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT. Phys Medica. 2017; 42: 203– 210. 29173917
  8. [9]McKeown C, Gillen G, Dempsey MF, Findlay C. Influence of slice overlap on positron emission tomography image quality. Phys Med Biol. 2016; 61: 1259– 1277. 26788967
  9. [12]Reynés-Llompart G, Gáamez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodríıguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Martíı-Climent JM. Performance characteristics of the whole-body Discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58: 1155– 1161. 28302761
  10. [14]Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS. NEMA NU 2–2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016; 43: 2334– 2343. 27147345

Authors
Pan, T., Einstein, S. A., Kappadath, S. C., Grogg, K. S., Lois Gomez, C., Alessio, A. M., Hunter, W. C., El Fakhri, G., Kinahan, P. E., & Mawlawi, O. R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Gordon Center for Medical Imaging (US)
  • Gordon Center for Medical Imaging Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA USA
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Mawlawi, Osama R.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-31
Volume
46
Issue
7
Pages
3025-3033
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2944041008
Cited by
122
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 3
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K07CA193916)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
PET/CT, axial field of view, spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, energy resolution, timing resolution, image quality, acquisition time, image reconstruction, PET/MR
MeSH terms
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Humans, Reference Standards, Phantoms, Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review