Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of PET Image for Fluorine-18 and Gallium-68 using Phantom in PET/CT

PET/CT에서 Phantom을 이용한 Fluorine-18, Gallium-68 방사성 핵종의 PET 영상 평가

  • Yoon, Seok-Hwan (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 윤석환 (서울대학교병원 핵의학과)
  • Received : 2018.07.23
  • Accepted : 2018.08.19
  • Published : 2018.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare PET imaging performance with Fluorine-18 ($^{18}F$) and Gallium-68 ($^{68}Ga$) for influence of physical properties of PET tracer. Measurement were performed on a Siemens Biograph mCT64 PET/CT scanner using NEMA IEC body phantom and Flangeless Esser PET phantom containing filled with $^{18}F$ and $^{68}Ga$. Emission scan duration(ESD) was set to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5min/bed for $^{68}Ga$ and 1min/bed for $^{18}F$. The PET image were evaluated in terms of contrast, spatial resolution. Under same condition, The percentage of contrast recovery measured in the phantom ranged from 16.88% to 72.56% for $^{68}Ga$ and from 27.51% to 74.43% for $^{18}F$ and The FWHM value to evaluate spatial resolution was 10.96 mm for $^{68}Ga$ and 9.19 mm for $^{18}F$. For this study, $^{18}F$ produces better image contrast and spatial resolution than $^{68}Ga$ due to higher positron yield and lower positron energy ($^{18}F$: 96.86%, 633.5 keV, $^{68}Ga$: 88.9%, 1899 keV), The physical properties of PET tracer effect on the PET image. $^{68}Ga$ image applying ESD of 3, 4, 5min/bed were showed similar to $^{18}F$ image with ESD of 1min/bed. This study suggests that increasing ESD for acquiring $^{68}Ga$ PET image seem to be similar to $^{18}F$ image.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim IY, Lee YK, Ahn SM. Effect of Glucose Level on Brain FDG-PET Images. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2017;40(2):275-80. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2017.40.2.13
  2. Jeong JM, Kim YJ, Lee YS, Lee DS, Chung JK, Lee MC. Radiolabeling of NOTA and DOTA with Positron Emitting $^{68}Ga$ and Investigation of in vitro properties. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2009;43(4):330-6.
  3. Fitzpatrick C, Lynch O, Marignol L. $^{68}Ga$-PSMAPET/ CT Has a Role in Detecting Prostate Cancer Lesions in Patients with Recurrent Disease. Anticancer Research. 2017;37(6):2753-60.
  4. Harshad R K, Richard P B, Molecular imaging using PET/CT applying $^{68}Ga$-Labeled tracers and targeted radionuclide therapy: Theranostics on the way to personalized medicine. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research. 2013;47(1): 47-53. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1055
  5. Ronald B, Mike J, Wolfgang A, Felix M, Markus N, Sigrid G, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. European Journal Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2010;37(1):181-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4
  6. Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and discussion. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Physics. 2016;3(1):1-17.
  7. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2012. Rosslyn; 2012.
  8. Oliveira JF. Influence of the time of flight and acquisition time on image quality in positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. [master's thesis]. Portugal: Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon; 2016.
  9. Lee JY, Lee EK, Kim KW, Jeong HW, Lyu KY, Park HH, et al. Evaluation and Comparison of Contrast to Noise Ratio and Signal to Noise Ratio According to Change of Reconstruction on Breast PET/CT. Journal o f Radiological S cience and T echnology. 2017;40(1):79-85 https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2017.40.1.12
  10. Zhu Y, Geng C, Huang J, Liu, J, Wu N, Xin J, et al. Measurement and Evaluation of Quantitative Performance of PET/ CT Images before a Multicenter Clinical Trial. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 13]; 8:9035. Available from: https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41598-018-27143-4. Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 9035 (2018)
  11. Ko HS, Park SK, Kim JS, Jung WY, Dong KR, Chung WK. A study on comparative analysis of SUVs before and after correction with use of recovery coefficient (RC) in partial volume effect (PVE). The Imaging Science Journal. 2014;62(1):11-5. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743131X12Y.0000000023
  12. Isabel M, Prata M, Gallium-68: A New Trend in PET Radiopharmacy. Current Radiopharmaceuticals. 2012 Apr;5(2):142-9. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874471011205020142
  13. Canadas, M. Romero sanz. E, Octeo vives, M, Vaqureo, JJ, et al. Performance evaluation for $^{68}Ga$ and $^{18}F$ of the ARGUS small animal PET scanner based on NEMA NU-4 standard. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium conference record. Nuclear Science Symposium. 2010.
  14. SanchezCrespo A. Comparison of Gallium-68 and Fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2013 Jun;76;55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.06.034
  15. Levin CS, Hoffman EJ. Calculation of positron range and its effect on the fundamental limit of positron emission tomography system spatial resolution. Physics in Medicine &. Biology. 1999;45(2):781-99.
  16. Susanne Z, Bjoern W, Harald B, Daniel H, Harald H. NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Physics. 2015;2(18):1-17.
  17. Habib J. Quantitative Analysis in Nuclear Medicine Imaging. Switzerland : Springer Science & Business Media; 2006, 531.
  18. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2007;48(6):932-45. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
  19. Soile PS, Jukka K, Ulla H, Pauliina L, Olli E, Pirjo N. Head-to-Head Comparison of $^{68}Ga$-Citrate and $^{18}F$-FDG PET/CT for Detection of Infectious Foci in Patients with Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2009;43(4):330-6.
  20. Kayani I, Bomanji JB, Groves A, Conway G, Gacinovic S, Win T, et al. Functional Imaging of Neuroendocrine Tumors With Combined PET/CT Using $^{68}Ga$-DOTATATE (Dota-DPhe1,Tyr3-octreotate) and $^{18}F$-FDG. The Cancer Journal 2008;112(11): 2447-55 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23469
  21. ZhaoX, ZhangC, YuH. ZangS, WangF, GuoH. Comparison between $^{68}Ga$-labelled PSMA and $^{18}F$-FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic value of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. European Urology Supplements. 2018;17(2):412-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31142-4
  22. Bertolli O, Eleftheriou A, Cecchetti M, Camarlinghi N, Belcari N, Tsoumpas C. PET iterative reconstruction incorporating an efficient positron range correction method. Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics. 2016;32(2):323-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.11.005