Research ArticleImaging

Continuous Bed Motion in a Silicon Photomultiplier–Based Scanner Provides Equivalent Spatial Resolution and Image Quality in Whole-Body PET Images at Similar Acquisition Times Using the Step-and-Shoot Method

Kodai Kumamoto, Hideaki Sato, Yuji Tsutsui, Shinichi Awamoto, Yasuo Yamashita, Shingo Baba and Masayuki Sasaki
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology December 2022, 50 (4) 335-341; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.121.263240

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure
  • FIGURE 1.
    FIGURE 1.

    PET images of point source at coordinates (0,1) cm. Upper figure shows axial images, and lower one shows coronal images. No visual difference was observed among acquisition methods, whereas coronal images extended along with increase in slice thickness.

  • FIGURE 2.
    FIGURE 2.

    Comparison of FWHMs in axial plane of 1 cm radial (A), 10 cm radial (B), and 10 cm tangential (C). They did not significantly differ between SS and CBM methods or among different bed speeds in CBM method even when slice thickness was changed. n.s. = not statistically significant.

  • FIGURE 3.
    FIGURE 3.

    Comparison of FWHMs of body axial direction. They did not significantly differ among different acquisition methods and bed speeds, whereas FWHM significantly increased in thicker slices.

  • FIGURE 4.
    FIGURE 4.

    PET images of body phantom using SS method (top) and CBM method (bottom). In CBM method, images with faster bed speeds show high background variability.

  • FIGURE 5.
    FIGURE 5.

    Visibility of hot spheres. Visual score of 10-mm sphere does not differ between SS 2-bed-position acquisition and 0.8 mm/s of CBM method. In CBM method, visual score decreased as bed speed increased.

  • FIGURE 6.
    FIGURE 6.

    Noise-equivalent counts of SS and CBM methods. In CBM method, noise-equivalent counts significantly decreased as bed speed increased. Bed speeds of 1.1 mm/s or faster showed significantly inferior noise-equivalent count to that in SS 2-bed-position method. NECphantom = noise-equivalent counts.

  • FIGURE 7.
    FIGURE 7.

    Physical assessment of PET image quality of SS and CBM methods. (A) Contrast percentage of 10-mm hot sphere did not significantly differ between SS and CBM methods or among different bed speeds in CBM method. (B) Bed speeds of 1.1 mm/s or faster showed background variability percentage significantly inferior to that in SS method. (C) Contrast–noise ratio in CBM method with bed speeds of 2.2 mm/s or faster was significantly lower than that in SS 2-bed-position method. N10mm = background variability percentage; QH,10mm = contrast percentage of 10-mm hot sphere; QH,10mm/N10mm = contrast-to-noise ratio.

Additional Files

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords