Phantom-based comparison of image quality in two digital PET/CT systems with different axial fields of view.
Rattachement africain : at. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objective SiPM-based PET/CT scanners offer enhanced sensitivity and timing resolution compared with conventional detector designs. This study compared two SiPM PET/CT systems sharing the same technology platform but differing in axial field of view (AFOV) and system sensitivity, to evaluate their impact on image quality, lesion detectability, and partial-volume effects.Approach A flangeless Esser PET phantom, filled with gallium-68 [⁶⁸Ga] and containing hot cylinders (8-25 mm) and cold spheres (9.5-31.8 mm), was imaged on both systems. Acquisitions employed matched reconstruction protocols. The shorter AFOV system used a 5-minute scan, while the longer AFOV system used a 2.5-minute scan to assess performance under reduced acquisition time. Image quality was quantified using contrast recovery coefficient (CRC), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).Main Results The longer AFOV system exhibited higher CRC and SNR for medium-to-large hot cylinders despite the shorter acquisition (16 mm cylinder CRC: 53.18 vs. 88.12; SNR: 4.11 vs. 7.14; 25 mm cylinder CRC: 84.30 vs. 92.42; SNR: 17.99 vs. 30.08 for shorter vs. longer AFOV systems). The shorter AFOV system performed better for the smallest hot cylinder (8 mm; CRC: 73.79 vs. 64.09; CNR: 343.98 vs. 258.99) and consistently achieved higher CRC and CNR for cold spheres, particularly at smaller diameters.Significance The longer AFOV system provides superior contrast recovery and noise performance for medium-to-large lesions, even with reduced scan duration. Conversely, the shorter AFOV system offers advantages for very small hot and cold targets, illustrating the trade-off between sensitivity and spatial resolution. These system-specific characteristics should guide protocol optimization for different clinical imaging tasks.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.