Performance Characteristics of the Whole-Body Discovery IQ PET/CT System
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to assess the physical performance of a new PET/CT system, the Discovery IQ with 5-ring detector blocks. Methods: Performance was measured using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU2-2012 methodology. Image quality was extended by accounting for different acquisition parameters (lesion-to-background ratios [8:1, 4:1, and 2:1] and acquisition times) and reconstruction algorithms (VUE-point HD [VPHD], VPHD with point-spread-function modeling [VPHD-S], and Q.Clear). Tomographic reconstruction was also assessed using a Jaszczak phantom. Additionally, 30 patient lesions were analyzed to account for differences in lesion volume and SUV quantification between reconstruction algorithms. Results: Spatial resolution ranged from 4.2 mm at 1 cm to 8.5 mm at 20 cm. Sensitivity measured at the center and at 10 cm was 22.8 and 20.4 kps/kBq, respectively. The noise-equivalent counting rate peak was 124 kcps at 9.1 kBq/cm3. The scatter fraction was 36.2%. The accuracy of correction for count losses and randoms was 3.9%. In the image quality test, contrast recovery for VPHD, VPHD-S, and Q.Clear ranged from 18%, 18%, and 13%, respectively (hot contrast; 10-mm sphere diameter; ratio, 2:1), to 68%, 67%, and 81%, respectively (cold contrast; 37-mm sphere diameter; ratio, 8:1). Background variability ranged from 3.4%, 3.0%, and 2.1%, respectively (ratio, 2:1), to 5.5%, 4.8%, and 3.7%, respectively (ratio, 8:1). On Q.Clear reconstruction, the decrease in the penalty term (β) increased the contrast recovery coefficients and background variability. With the Jaszczak phantom, image quality increased overall when a reconstruction algorithm modeling the point-spread function was used, and use of Q.Clear increased the signal-to-noise ratio. Lesions analyzed using VPHD-S and Q.Clear had an SUVmean of 6.5 ± 3 and 7 ± 3, respectively (P < 0.01), and an SUVmax of 11 ± 4.8 and 12 ± 4, respectively (P < 0.01). No significant difference in mean lesion volume was found between algorithms. Conclusion: Among the various Discovery bismuth germanium oxide–based PET/CT scanners, the IQ with 5-ring detector blocks has the highest overall performance, with improved sensitivity and counting rate performance. Q.Clear reconstruction improves the PET image quality, with higher recovery coefficients and lower background variability.
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?
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 [46]
The Scanner Characteristics section identifies the Discovery IQ as a BGO scanner with photomultipliers, and Scanner Performance reports sensitivity of 22.80 cps/kBq at the center and 20.43 cps/kBq at 10 cm. This supports the claim’s approximate BGO sensitivity, but our copy does not report 23.3 cps/kBq or compare the scanner with a SiPM system. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsing a commercially available PL reconstruction (GE Q.Clear), phantom studies have shown that PL reconstruction can increase CR of standardized sphere inserts compared to conventional TOF and PSF reconstruction.
“Using a commercially available PL reconstruction (General Electric [GE] Q.Clear), several phantom studies have shown that PL reconstruction can increase the CR of standardized sphere inserts compared to conventional TOF and PSF reconstruction [41,46,101,107,108].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [46]
In Scanner Performance (page unavailable), the NEMA phantom results report higher sphere contrast recovery with Q.Clear than with VPHD and VPHD-S, the point-spread-function reconstruction. The paper does not report a time-of-flight (TOF) comparison, so it supports the sphere and PSF parts of the claim but not the TOF comparator. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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 23 · Cited by 78
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Ell PJ. The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:32-36.
- Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46:5-19.
- Martí-Climent JM, Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, et al. Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance char- acteristics of the PET/CT Biograph mCT scanner. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2013;32:13-21.
- Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394-5411.
- Kolthammer JA, Su K-H, Grover A, Narayanan M, Jordan DW, Muzic RF. Performance evaluation of the Ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:3843-3859.
- Teräs M, Tolvanen T, Johansson JJ, Williams JJ, Knuuti J. Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: Discovery STE and Discovery VCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1683-1692.
- De Ponti E, Morzenti S, Guerra L. Performance measurements for the PET/CT Discovery-600 using NEMA NU 2-2007 standards. Med Phys. 2011;38:968- 974.
- Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Watson CC, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Performance characteristics of a new LSO PET/CT scanner with extended axial field-of-view and PSF reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2009;56:633-639.
- Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40:064301.
- Ahn S, Ross SG, Asma E, et al. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5733-5751.
- Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorpo- rating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237-245.
- Bolard G, Prior JO, Modolo L, et al. Performance comparison of two commercial BGO-based PET/CT scanners using NEMA NU 2-2001. Med Phys. 2007;34:2708- 2717.
- Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, et al. Performance evaluation of the new whole- body PET/CT scanner: Discovery ST. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:867- 881.
- Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA, Kohlmyer S, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1734-1742.
- Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM pro- cedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328-354.
- Authors
- Reynés-Llompart, G., Gámez-Cenzano, C., Romero-Zayas, I., Rodríguez-Bel, L., Vercher-Conejero, J. L., & Martí-Climent, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Bellvitge University Hospital (ES)
- Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2017-03-16
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1155-1161
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2595103465
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 6.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- 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 › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
- Keywords
- spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, point spread function reconstruction, Q.Clear, contrast recovery coefficient, background variation, standardized uptake value, lesion-to-background ratio, acquisition time, Jaszczak phantom, lesion quantification
- MeSH terms
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Equipment Design, Humans, Neoplasms, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging, Equipment Failure Analysis, Whole Body Imaging, Signal-To-Noise Ratio
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
