Performance Characteristics of the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System
Open accessAbstract
This study evaluated the performance of the Biograph Vision digital PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU 2-2012 standard (published by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [NEMA]) to allow for a reliable, reproducible, and intersystem-comparable performance measurement. Methods: The new digital PET/CT system features silicon photomultiplier–based detectors with 3.2-mm lutetium oxyorthosilicate crystals and full coverage of the scintillator area. The PET components incorporate 8 rings of 38 detector blocks, and each block contains 4 × 2 mini blocks. Each mini block consists of a 5 × 5 lutetium oxyorthosilicate array of 3.2 × 3.2 × 20 mm crystals coupled to a silicon photomultiplier array of 16 × 16 mm, resulting in an axial field of view of 26.1 cm. In this study, PET/CT system performance was evaluated for conformation with the NEMA NU 2-2012 standard, with additional measurements described in the new NEMA NU 2-2018 standard. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, count-rate performance, accuracy of attenuation and scatter correction, image quality, coregistration accuracy, and time-of-flight performance were determined. Measurements were directly compared with results from its predecessor, the Biograph mCT Flow, using existing literature. Moreover, feasibility to comply with the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. (EARL) criteria was evaluated, and some illustrative patient PET images were obtained. Results: The Biograph Vision showed a transverse and axial spatial resolution of 3.6 and 3.5 mm, respectively, in full width at half maximum at a 1-cm offset from the center of the field of view (measured with a 22Na 0.25-mm point source), a NEMA sensitivity of 16.4 kcps/MBq, and a NEMA peak noise-equivalent count-rate of 306 kcps at 32 kBq/mL. Time-of-flight resolution varied from 210 to 215 as count-rate increased up to the peak noise-equivalent count-rate. The overall image contrast seen with the NEMA image quality phantom ranged from 77.2% to 89.8%. Furthermore, the system was able to comply with the current and future EARL performance criteria. Conclusion: The Biograph Vision outperforms the analog Biograph mCT Flow, and the system is able to meet European harmonizing performance standards.
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 100% detector coverage and 214 ps timing resolution can offer increased system sensitivity over a comparable LSO PMT system, exceeding the expected difference based on the slightly larger axial FOV (16.4 vs. 9.6 cps/kBq with 25.6 vs. 22.1 cm FOV).
“In contrast, a SiPM system with 100% detector coverage and 214 ps timing resolution [47] can offer increased system sensitivity over a comparable PMT system with lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO) crystals [48] that exceeds the expected difference based on the slightly larger axial FOV (16.4 vs. 9.6 cps/kBq with a 25.6 vs. 22.1 cm FOV) [47].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [47]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent PET systems with extra-large axial FOV >25 cm have potential to substantially reduce required acquisition times.
“This becomes especially evident with recent PET systems with extra-large axial FOV of >25 cm and their potential to substantially reduce required acquisition times [47,149,150].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [47]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0
Boellaard, R., Delgado-Bolton, R., Oyen, W. J. G., Giammarile, F., Tatsch, K., Eschner, W., Verzijlbergen, F. J., Barrington, S. F., Pike, L. C., Weber, W. A., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x · Cited by 3,303 · see citing works
Self-citationStudies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier–Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System
Hsu, D. F. C., Ilan, E., Peterson, W. T., Uribe, J., Lubberink, M., & Levin, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.189514 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Performance Evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT System According to the NEMA NU2-2012 Standard
Rausch, I., Ruiz, A., Valverde-Pascual, I., Cal-González, J., Beyer, T., & Carrio, I. (2019) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.215541 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Rausch, I., Cal-González, J., Dapra, D., Gallowitsch, H. J., Lind, P., Beyer, T., & Minear, G. (2015) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-015-0132-1 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369-1379.
- Melcher CL. Scintillation crystals for PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1051-1055.
- Moses WW. Time of Flight in PET Revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1325-1330.
- Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471-480.
- Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375-2389.
- 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.
- Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: Initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1378-1385.
- Surti S. Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:98-105.
- St. James ST, Thompson CJ. Investigation of the block effect in LSO detectors. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2005;5:2474-2477.
- Watson CC, Casey ME, Eriksson L, Mulnix T, Adams D, Bendriem B. NEMA NU 2 performance tests for scanners with intrinsic radioactivity. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:822-826.
- Watson CC. Extension of single scatter simulation to scatter correction of time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54:1679-1686.
- Varrone A, Sjöholm N, Eriksson L, Gulyás B, Halldin C, Farde L. Advancement in PET quantification using 3D-OP-OSEM point spread function reconstruction with the HRRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1639-1650.
- Wang G-C, Li X, Niu X, et al. PET timing performance measurement method using NEMA NEC Phantom. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2016;63:1335-1342.
- Boellaard R, Doherty MJO, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181-200.
- Kaalep A, Sera T, Rijnsdorp S, et al. Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1-18.
- Vandenberghe S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Lewitt RM, Karp JS. Fast reconstruction of 3D time-of- flight PET data by axial rebinning and transverse mashing. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:1603-1621.
- Jødal L, Le Loirec C, Champion C. Positron range in PET imaging: Non-conventional isotopes. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:7419-7434.
- Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. The benefit of time-of-flight in PET imaging: Experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2015;6:790-795. by University of Groningen on January 16, 2019. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spencer, B. A., Berg, E., Schmall, J. P., Omidvari, N., Leung, E. K., Abdelhafez, Y. G., Tang, S., Deng, Z., Dong, Y., Lv, Y., et al. (2021) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.120.250597 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
Update on latest advances in time-of-flight PET
Surti, S., & Karp, J. S. (2020) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.031 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging advances in the 21st century
Vaz, S. C., Oliveira, F., Herrmann, K., & Veit-Haibach, P. (2020) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20200095 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Alberts, I., Sachpekidis, C., Prenosil, G., Viscione, M., Bohn, K. P., Mingels, C., Shi, K., Ashar-Oromieh, A., & Rominger, A. (2021) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-021-01588-6 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“This becomes especially evident with recent PET systems with extra-large axial FOV of >25 cm and their potential to substantially reduce required acquisition times [47,149,150].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCervenka, S., Frick, A., Bodén, R., & Lubberink, M. (2022) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-01990-2 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- van Sluis, J., de Jong, J., Schaar, J., Noordzij, W., van Snick, P., Dierckx, R., Borra, R., Willemsen, A., & Boellaard, R.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2019-01-10
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1031-1036
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2909887812
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 25
- FWCI
- 44.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- digital PET/CT, silicon photomultipliers, spatial resolution, detector sensitivity, count rate performance, time-of-flight resolution, attenuation and scatter correction, image quality
- MeSH terms
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Aged, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Reference Standards, Whole Body 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
