A promising future: Comparable imaging capability of MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier and conventional photosensor preclinical PET systems

Aron K. Krizsan, Imre Lajtos, Magnus Dahlbom, Freddie Daver, Miklos Emri, Sandor A. Kis, Gabor Opposits, Laszlo Pohubi, Norbert Potari, Gyula Hegyesi, Gabor Kalinka, Janos Gal, Jozsef Imrek, Ferenc Nagy, Ivan Valastyan, Beata Kiraly, Jozsef Molnar, Delfo Sanfilippo, Laszlo Balkay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We recently completed construction of a small-animal PET system- the MiniPET-3-that uses state-of-the-art silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photosensors, making possible dual-modality imaging with MRI. In this article, we compare the MiniPET-3 with the MiniPET-2, a system with the same crystal geometry but conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). Methods: The standard measurements proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 4 protocols were performed on both systems. These measurements included spatial resolution, system sensitivity, energy resolution, counting rate performance, scatter fraction, spillover ratio for air and water, recovery coefficient, and image uniformity. The energy windows were set to 350 C650 keV on the MiniPET-2 and 360-662 keV on the MiniPET-3. Results: Spatial resolution was approximately 17% better on average for the MiniPET-3 than the MiniPET-2. The systems performed similarly in terms of peak absolute sensitivity (∼1.37%), spillover ratio for air (∼0.15), spillover ratio for water (∼0.25), and recovery coefficient (∼0.33, 0.59, 0.81, 0.89, and 0.94). Uniformity was 5.59% for the MiniPET-2 and 6.49% for the MiniPET-3. Minor differences were found in scatter fraction. With the ratlike phantom, the peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 14 kcps on the MiniPET-2 but 24 kcps on the MiniPET-3. However, with the mouselike phantom, these values were 55 and 91 kcps, respectively. The optimal coincidence time window was 6 ns for the MiniPET-2 and 8 ns for the MiniPET-3. Conclusion: Images obtained with the SiPM-based Mini-PET-3 small-animal PET system are similar in quality to those obtained with the conventional PMT-based MiniPET-2.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1948-1953
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume56
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Silicon
Air
Water
Noise

Keywords

  • Instrumentation
  • MiniPET
  • Molecular imaging
  • Performance evaluation
  • Small-animal PET scanner

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

A promising future : Comparable imaging capability of MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier and conventional photosensor preclinical PET systems. / Krizsan, Aron K.; Lajtos, Imre; Dahlbom, Magnus; Daver, Freddie; Emri, Miklos; Kis, Sandor A.; Opposits, Gabor; Pohubi, Laszlo; Potari, Norbert; Hegyesi, Gyula; Kalinka, Gabor; Gal, Janos; Imrek, Jozsef; Nagy, Ferenc; Valastyan, Ivan; Kiraly, Beata; Molnar, Jozsef; Sanfilippo, Delfo; Balkay, Laszlo.

In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 12, 01.12.2015, p. 1948-1953.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krizsan, Aron K. ; Lajtos, Imre ; Dahlbom, Magnus ; Daver, Freddie ; Emri, Miklos ; Kis, Sandor A. ; Opposits, Gabor ; Pohubi, Laszlo ; Potari, Norbert ; Hegyesi, Gyula ; Kalinka, Gabor ; Gal, Janos ; Imrek, Jozsef ; Nagy, Ferenc ; Valastyan, Ivan ; Kiraly, Beata ; Molnar, Jozsef ; Sanfilippo, Delfo ; Balkay, Laszlo. / A promising future : Comparable imaging capability of MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier and conventional photosensor preclinical PET systems. In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 56, No. 12. pp. 1948-1953.
@article{4e8764c4bc4745c5b780a61ff260ead7,
title = "A promising future: Comparable imaging capability of MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier and conventional photosensor preclinical PET systems",
abstract = "We recently completed construction of a small-animal PET system- the MiniPET-3-that uses state-of-the-art silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photosensors, making possible dual-modality imaging with MRI. In this article, we compare the MiniPET-3 with the MiniPET-2, a system with the same crystal geometry but conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). Methods: The standard measurements proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 4 protocols were performed on both systems. These measurements included spatial resolution, system sensitivity, energy resolution, counting rate performance, scatter fraction, spillover ratio for air and water, recovery coefficient, and image uniformity. The energy windows were set to 350 C650 keV on the MiniPET-2 and 360-662 keV on the MiniPET-3. Results: Spatial resolution was approximately 17{\%} better on average for the MiniPET-3 than the MiniPET-2. The systems performed similarly in terms of peak absolute sensitivity (∼1.37{\%}), spillover ratio for air (∼0.15), spillover ratio for water (∼0.25), and recovery coefficient (∼0.33, 0.59, 0.81, 0.89, and 0.94). Uniformity was 5.59{\%} for the MiniPET-2 and 6.49{\%} for the MiniPET-3. Minor differences were found in scatter fraction. With the ratlike phantom, the peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 14 kcps on the MiniPET-2 but 24 kcps on the MiniPET-3. However, with the mouselike phantom, these values were 55 and 91 kcps, respectively. The optimal coincidence time window was 6 ns for the MiniPET-2 and 8 ns for the MiniPET-3. Conclusion: Images obtained with the SiPM-based Mini-PET-3 small-animal PET system are similar in quality to those obtained with the conventional PMT-based MiniPET-2.",
keywords = "Instrumentation, MiniPET, Molecular imaging, Performance evaluation, Small-animal PET scanner",
author = "Krizsan, {Aron K.} and Imre Lajtos and Magnus Dahlbom and Freddie Daver and Miklos Emri and Kis, {Sandor A.} and Gabor Opposits and Laszlo Pohubi and Norbert Potari and Gyula Hegyesi and Gabor Kalinka and Janos Gal and Jozsef Imrek and Ferenc Nagy and Ivan Valastyan and Beata Kiraly and Jozsef Molnar and Delfo Sanfilippo and Laszlo Balkay",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2967/jnumed.115.157677",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "1948--1953",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Medicine",
issn = "0161-5505",
publisher = "Society of Nuclear Medicine Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A promising future

T2 - Comparable imaging capability of MRI-compatible silicon photomultiplier and conventional photosensor preclinical PET systems

AU - Krizsan, Aron K.

AU - Lajtos, Imre

AU - Dahlbom, Magnus

AU - Daver, Freddie

AU - Emri, Miklos

AU - Kis, Sandor A.

AU - Opposits, Gabor

AU - Pohubi, Laszlo

AU - Potari, Norbert

AU - Hegyesi, Gyula

AU - Kalinka, Gabor

AU - Gal, Janos

AU - Imrek, Jozsef

AU - Nagy, Ferenc

AU - Valastyan, Ivan

AU - Kiraly, Beata

AU - Molnar, Jozsef

AU - Sanfilippo, Delfo

AU - Balkay, Laszlo

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - We recently completed construction of a small-animal PET system- the MiniPET-3-that uses state-of-the-art silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photosensors, making possible dual-modality imaging with MRI. In this article, we compare the MiniPET-3 with the MiniPET-2, a system with the same crystal geometry but conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). Methods: The standard measurements proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 4 protocols were performed on both systems. These measurements included spatial resolution, system sensitivity, energy resolution, counting rate performance, scatter fraction, spillover ratio for air and water, recovery coefficient, and image uniformity. The energy windows were set to 350 C650 keV on the MiniPET-2 and 360-662 keV on the MiniPET-3. Results: Spatial resolution was approximately 17% better on average for the MiniPET-3 than the MiniPET-2. The systems performed similarly in terms of peak absolute sensitivity (∼1.37%), spillover ratio for air (∼0.15), spillover ratio for water (∼0.25), and recovery coefficient (∼0.33, 0.59, 0.81, 0.89, and 0.94). Uniformity was 5.59% for the MiniPET-2 and 6.49% for the MiniPET-3. Minor differences were found in scatter fraction. With the ratlike phantom, the peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 14 kcps on the MiniPET-2 but 24 kcps on the MiniPET-3. However, with the mouselike phantom, these values were 55 and 91 kcps, respectively. The optimal coincidence time window was 6 ns for the MiniPET-2 and 8 ns for the MiniPET-3. Conclusion: Images obtained with the SiPM-based Mini-PET-3 small-animal PET system are similar in quality to those obtained with the conventional PMT-based MiniPET-2.

AB - We recently completed construction of a small-animal PET system- the MiniPET-3-that uses state-of-the-art silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photosensors, making possible dual-modality imaging with MRI. In this article, we compare the MiniPET-3 with the MiniPET-2, a system with the same crystal geometry but conventional photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). Methods: The standard measurements proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 4 protocols were performed on both systems. These measurements included spatial resolution, system sensitivity, energy resolution, counting rate performance, scatter fraction, spillover ratio for air and water, recovery coefficient, and image uniformity. The energy windows were set to 350 C650 keV on the MiniPET-2 and 360-662 keV on the MiniPET-3. Results: Spatial resolution was approximately 17% better on average for the MiniPET-3 than the MiniPET-2. The systems performed similarly in terms of peak absolute sensitivity (∼1.37%), spillover ratio for air (∼0.15), spillover ratio for water (∼0.25), and recovery coefficient (∼0.33, 0.59, 0.81, 0.89, and 0.94). Uniformity was 5.59% for the MiniPET-2 and 6.49% for the MiniPET-3. Minor differences were found in scatter fraction. With the ratlike phantom, the peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 14 kcps on the MiniPET-2 but 24 kcps on the MiniPET-3. However, with the mouselike phantom, these values were 55 and 91 kcps, respectively. The optimal coincidence time window was 6 ns for the MiniPET-2 and 8 ns for the MiniPET-3. Conclusion: Images obtained with the SiPM-based Mini-PET-3 small-animal PET system are similar in quality to those obtained with the conventional PMT-based MiniPET-2.

KW - Instrumentation

KW - MiniPET

KW - Molecular imaging

KW - Performance evaluation

KW - Small-animal PET scanner

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958242996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958242996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2967/jnumed.115.157677

DO - 10.2967/jnumed.115.157677

M3 - Article

C2 - 26449836

AN - SCOPUS:84958242996

VL - 56

SP - 1948

EP - 1953

JO - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

SN - 0161-5505

IS - 12

ER -