Update on time-of-flight PET imaging
Open accessAbstract
Time-of-flight (TOF) PET was initially introduced in the early days of PET. The TOF PET scanners developed in the 1980s had limited sensitivity and spatial resolution, were operated in 2-dimensional mode with septa, and used analytic image reconstruction methods. The current generation of TOF PET scanners has the highest sensitivity and spatial resolution ever achieved in commercial whole-body PET, is operated in fully-3-dimensional mode, and uses iterative reconstruction with full system modeling. Previously, it was shown that TOF provides a gain in image signal-to-noise ratio that is proportional to the square root of the object size divided by the system timing resolution. With oncologic studies being the primary application of PET, more recent work has shown that in modern TOF PET scanners there is an improved tradeoff between lesion contrast, image noise, and total imaging time, leading to a combination of improved lesion detectability, reduced scan time or injected dose, and more accurate and precise lesion uptake measurement. Because the benefit of TOF PET is also higher for heavier patients, clinical performance is more uniform over all patient sizes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Time of flight (TOF) increases lesion contrast recovery (CR) and SUV compared to non-TOF PET at a comparable level of image noise.
“Briefly, TOF increases the lesion’s CR and SUV compared to non-TOF PET at a comparable level of image noise [94,95,96].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [94]
In “Studies Demonstrating Benefit of Modern TOF PET Scanners in Clinically Relevant Imaging Tasks” (page not available), the paper reports higher lesion contrast recovery with TOF at the same image noise. Its “Accuracy and Precision of Lesion Uptake Measurement in Patients” subsection reports higher normalized uptake value (NUV) at similar noise, but does not report standardized uptake value (SUV) specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCompared 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 [94]
The Introduction says TOF reconstruction reduces noise correlations and improves image SNR, and the section on clinically relevant imaging tasks reports lower noise for TOF than non-TOF images at similar lesion contrast. The cited passages do not establish that this comparison was specifically between standard OSEM and OSEM with TOF. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 61 · Cited by 303
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [6]Gariod R Allemand R Cormoreche E Laval M Moszynski M The "LETI" positron tomograph architecture and time-of-flight improvements Paper presented at: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Time-of-Flight Emission Tomography, 1982 Washington University, St. Louis, MO
- [16]Yamamoto M Hoffman GR Ficke DC Ter-Pogossian MM Imaging algorithm and image quality in time-of-flight assisted positron computed tomography: Super PETT I Paper presented at: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Time-of-Flight Emission Tomography, 1982 Washington University, St. Louis, MO
- [42]Surti S Perkins AE Clementel E Daube-Witherspoon ME Karp JS Impact of TOF PET on variability of lesion uptake estimation Paper presented at: World Molecular Imaging Conference, 2010 Kyoto, Japan
- [55]Spurrier MA Szupryczynski P Kan Y Carey AA Melcher CL Effects of Ca2+ Co-Doping on the Scintillation Properties of LSO:Ce IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2008 55 1178 1182
- Authors
- Surti, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Surti, Suleman
- ORCID
- Surti, Suleman
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2014-12-18
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 98-105
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- PMC
- PMC4287223
- OpenAlex
- W2151843995
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- National Institutes of Health
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA113941)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB009056)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
- Keywords
- time-of-flight PET, PET scanner design, spatial resolution, system sensitivity, iterative reconstruction, signal-to-noise ratio, lesion detectability, scan time reduction, patient size, tumor imaging
- MeSH terms
- Biological Transport, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, 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
