Methodology and hardware for assessing the quantitative characteristics of pet images in the study of dynamic objects

The description of the original phantom design for assessing the quantitative characteristics of PET images in the study of dynamic objects is given. The phantom movement is controlled by the breath synchronization system, which records the phantom movement amplitude and the duration of the movement cycle. A curve was obtained that simulates human breathing, the parameters of which (amplitude and period) correspond to those obtained in the study of the chest. The values of the ecovery coefficients and contrast are obtained taking into account the sizes of the spheres, as well as the static and dynamic types of movement of phantoms. An assessment of the discrepancy between the recovery coefficients and the contrast values for the spheres installed inside the phantom in the static and dynamic states has been made. With a decrease in the diameter (respectively, and volume) of the sphere, an increase in the difference in values (between the static and dynamic positions of the phantom) of the recovery coefficient is observed. The optimal values of the recovery coefficients obtained using the QClear reconstruction algorithm have been determined. Recommendations for the use of the developed device in the study of dynamic objects are described. It is advisable to use the installation presented in this work to control the quality of the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of diagnostic images obtained both on PET/CT scanners and during studies using SPECT/CT (single-photon emission tomograph combined with a computed tomograph).

1. Beyer T., Antoch G., Blodgett T., Freudenberg L. F., Akhurst T., Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2003, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 588–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1097-6

2. Mawlawi O., Kappadath S. C., Pan Tinsu, Rohren E., Macapinlac H. A. Factors Affecting Quantification in PET/CT Imaging. Current Medical Imaging Reviews, 2008, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 34–45. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340508783502778

3. Pandey A. K., Sharma P., Pandey M., Aswathi K., Malhotra A., Kumar R. Spreadsheet program for estimating recovery coefficient to get partial volume corrected standardized uptake value in clinical positron emission tomography-computed tomography studies. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2012, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 89–94. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-3919.110688

4. Meunier L. L., Maass-Moreno R., Carrasquillo J. A., Dieckmann W., Bacharach S. L. PET/CT Imaging: Effect of Respiratory Motion on Apparent Myocardial Uptake. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 2006, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.09.003

5. Hmelev A. V. Radionuclide Imaging in a PET Center. Moscow, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, 2015. 368 p. (in Russian).

6. Yunfeng Cui, Bowsher J., Jing Cai, Fang-Fang Yin. Impact of moving target on measurement accuracy in 3D and 4D PET imaging – a phantom study. Advances in Radiation Oncology, 2017, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016 %2Fj.adro.2016.12.002

7. Chipiga L. A., Zvonova I. A., Kataeva G. V., Kostenikov N. A. Image quality control in positron emission tomography using the Madeira phantom. Medicinskaya fizika = Medical Physics, 2014, no. 3 (63), pp. 48–56 (in Russian).

8. Chipiga L., Vodovatov A., Kataeva G. et al. Proposals of quality assurance in positron emission tomography in Russia. Meditsinskaya fizika = Medical Physics, 2019, no. 2 (82), pp. 78–92 (in Russian).

9. Emelyanenko E. V., Tarutin I. G., Belobokov P. A. Influence of reconstruction parameters of positron emission tomograph scanning on the effect of partial volume of the pathological lesion. Vestsi Natsyyanal’nai akademii navuk Belarusi. Seryya fizika-technichnych navuk = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Physical-technical series, 2021, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 356–364 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.29235/1561-8358-2021-66-3-356-364

10. Lois C., Jakoby B. W., Long M. J., Hubner K. F., Barker D. W., Casey M. E., Conti M., Panin V. Y, Kadrmas D. J., Townsend D. W. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2010, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 237–245. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.068098