Improvements in PET Image Quality in Time of Flight (TOF) Simultaneous PET/MRI
Abstract
Purpose An integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner with time of flight (TOF) technology is now available for clinical use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential of TOF PET in PET/MRI to reduce artifacts in PET images when compared to non-TOF PET/MRI, TOF PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT), and non-TOF PET/CT. Procedures All patients underwent a single 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) injection, followed first by PET/CT, and subsequently by PET/MRI. PET/CT exams were requested as standard-of-care for oncological indications. Using the PET acquisitions datasets, 4 series of images (TOF PET/CT, non-TOF PET/CT, TOF PET/MRI, and non-TOF PET/MRI) were reconstructed. These image series were visually evaluated for: (1) dental metal artifacts, (2) breathing artifacts, and (3) pelvic artifacts due to scatter correction errors from high bladder [(18)F]FDG concentration. PET image quality was assessed by a 3-point scale (1-clinically significant artifact, 2-non clinically significant artifact, and 3-no artifact). Results Twenty-five patients (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 13 years old; female: 10, male: 15) were enrolled. TOF PET/MRI, non-TOF PET/MRI, TOF PET/CT, and non-TOF PET/CT scores 2.8, 2.5, 2.4, and 2.3, respectively for the presence of dental artifacts, 2.8, 2.5, 2.2, and 1.9, respectively, for the presence of breathing artifacts, and 2.7, 1.7, 2.0, and 1.3, respectively, for the presence of pelvic artifacts TOF PET…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Compared to standard OSEM reconstruction, OSEM with TOF shows improved noise characteristics.
“Compared to standard ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction, OSEM with TOF shows improved noise characteristics [49,94,156,157,158].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [156]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Minamimoto, R., Levin, C., Jamali, M., Holley, D., Barkhodari, A., Zaharchuk, G., & Iagaru, A.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Iagaru, Andrei
- Venue
- Molecular Imaging and Biology
- Published
- 2016-02-16
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 776-781
- ISSN
- 1536-1632 (ISSN-L)
- 1860-2002
- OpenAlex
- W2283437346
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 6.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Molecular Imaging and Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- General Electric
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- time-of-flight PET, PET/MRI, PET image quality, breathing artifacts, scatter correction, 18F-FDG, PET/CT comparison, timing resolution
- MeSH terms
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Positron-Emission Tomography
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
