We report our initial clinical experience for image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype scanner with time-of-flight (DigitalTF), compared with an analog PET scanner with time-of-flight (GeminiTF PET/CT). Methods: Twenty-one oncologic patients, mean age 58 y, first underwent clinical 18 F-FDG PET/CT on the GeminiTF. The scanner table was then withdrawn while the patient remained on the table, and the DigitalTF was inserted between the GeminiTF PET and CT scanner. The patients were scanned for a second time using the same PET field of view with CT from the GeminiTF for attenuation correction. Two interpreters reviewed the 2 sets of PET/CT images for overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and sharpness. They counted the number of suggestive 18 F-FDG-avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the 5 patients referred for initial staging. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) and SUV gradients as a measure of lesion sharpness were obtained. Results: The DigitalTF showed better image quality than the GeminiTF. In a side-by-side comparison using a 5-point scale, lesion conspicuity (4.3 ± 0.6), lesion sharpness (4.3 ± 0.6), and diagnostic confidence (3.4 ± 0.7) were better with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF (P , 0.01). In 52 representative lesions, the lesion maximum SUV was 36% higher with DigitalTF than with GeminiTF, lesion-toblood-pool SUV ratio was 59% higher, and SUV gradient was 51% higher, with good correlation between the 2 scanners. Lesions less than 1.5 cm showed a greater increase in SUV from GeminiTF to DigitalTF than those lesions 1.5 cm or greater. In 5 of 21 patients, DigitalTF showed an additional 8 suggestive lesions that were not seen using GeminiTF. In the 15 restaging patients, the true-negative rate was 100% and true-positive rate was 78% for both scanners. In the 5 patients for initial staging, DigitalTF led to upstaging in 2 patients and showed the same staging in the other 3 patients, compared with GeminiTF. Conclusion: DigitalTF provides better image quality, diagnostic confidence, and accuracy than GeminiTF. DigitalTF may be the most beneficial in detecting small tumor lesions and disease staging. PETcont inues to play a significant role in molecular imaging.Steady improvements in detector design and architecture as well as the implementation of time-of-flight (TOF) technology have created significant improvements in image quality and greater flexibility in reducing radiotracer dose and scanning time (1-4).The current trend in molecular imaging places emphasis on accurate, quantitative PET imaging for improved lesion characterization and treatment monitoring (5). A new type of scintillation detector, digital photon counters (DPC), was recently developed by Philips Healthcare (6-8). The key innovation of the new digital PET system is the replacement of conventional photomultipliers with high-performance digital detectors and the implementation of singlephoton avalanche photodiodes with low-voltage complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) logic on the same silico...

This study evaluated the positron emission tomography (PET) imaging performance of the Ingenuity TF 128 PET/computed tomography (CT) scanner which has a PET component that was designed to support a wider radioactivity range than is possible with those of Gemini TF PET/CT and Ingenuity TF PET/MR. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate characteristics and image quality were evaluated according to the NEMA NU 2–2007 standard and ACR phantom accreditation procedures; these were supplemented by additional measurements intended to characterize the system under conditions that would be encountered during quantitative cardiac imaging with 82Rb. Image quality was evaluated using a hot spheres phantom, and various contrast recovery and noise measurements were made from replicated images. Timing and energy resolution, dead time, and the linearity of the image activity concentration, were all measured over a wide range of count rates. Spatial resolution (4.8– 5.1 mm FWHM), sensitivity (7.3 cps kBq−1), peak noise-equivalent count rate (124 kcps), and peak trues rate (365 kcps)were similar to those of the Gemini TF PET/CT. Contrast recovery was higher with a 2 mm, body-detail reconstruction than with a 4 mm, body reconstruction, although the precision was reduced. The noise equivalent count rate peak was broad (within 10% of peak from 241–609 MBq). The activity measured in phantom images was within 10% of the true activity for count rates up to those observed in 82Rb cardiac PET studies.

We have proposed a technique for estimating image-derived input functions using independent component analysis without blood sampling. The results of our method were highly correlated with those from standard blood sampling, and more accurate than those of other methods proposed previously.