ArticleEJNMMI physics2018
Initial experience with a SiPM-based PET/CT scanner: influence of acquisition time on image quality.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing small-lesion detectability and acquisition time optimisation in silicon-detector-Based PET: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Reducing acquisition time in O-(2-Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Leveraging small voxel with optimal acquisition time for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- EnhancingCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Comparison of digital and analog [Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A proper protocol for routineEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Feasibility of a deep learning algorithm to achieve the low-doseThe British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Ultralow-dose [European radiology · 2023Article
- Deep learning model for automatic image quality assessment in PET.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of Reduced Image Noise on Deauville Scores in Patients with Lymphoma Scanned on a Long-Axial Field-of-View PET/CT-Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Modified signal-to-noise ratio in the liver using the background-to-lung activity ratio to assess image quality of whole-bodyRadiological physics and technology · 2023Article
- Optimizing acquisition times for total-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography with half-doseEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Exploration of the total-body PET/CT reconstruction protocol with ultra-lowEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A novel read methodology to evaluate the optimal dose ofEJNMMI research · 2021Article
- New PET technologies - embracing progress and pushing the limits.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Moving the goalposts while scoring-the dilemma posed by new PET technologies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Phantom and clinical assessment of small pulmonary nodules using Q.Clear reconstruction on a silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Feasibility of equivalent performance of 3D TOF [EJNMMI research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA newly introduced PET/CT scanner (Discovery Meaningful Insights-DMI, GE Healthcare) includes the silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) with time-of-flight (TOF) technology first used in the GE SIGNA PET/MRI. In this study, we investigated the impact of various acquisition times on image quality using this SiPM-based PET/CT.
methodsWe reviewed data from 58 participants with cancer who were scanned using the DMI PET/CT scanner. The administered dosages ranged 295.3-429.9 MBq (mean ± SD 356.3 ± 37.4) and imaging started at 71-142 min (mean ± SD 101.41 ± 17.52) after administration of the radiopharmaceutical. The patients' BMI ranged 19.79-46.16 (mean ± SD 26.55 ± 5.53). We retrospectively reconstructed the raw TOF data at 30, 60, 90, and 120 s/bed and at the standard image acquisition time per clinical protocol (180 or 210 s/bed depending on BMI). Each reconstruction was reviewed blindly by two nuclear medicine physicians and scored 1-5 (1-poor, 5-excellent quality). The liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was used as a quantitative measure of image quality.
resultsThe average scores ± SD of the readers were 2.61 ± 0.83, 3.70 ± 0.92, 4.36 ± 0.82, 4.82 ± 0.39, and 4.91 ± 0.91 for the 30, 60, 90, and 120 s/bed and at standard acquisition time, respectively. Inter-reader agreement on image quality assessment was good, with a weighted kappa of 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.81). In the evaluation of the effects of time per bed acquisition on semi-quantitative measurements, we found that the only time point significantly different from the standard time were 30 and 60 s (both with P < 0.001). The effects of dose and BMI were not statistically significant (P = 0.195 and 0.098, respectively). There was a significant positive effect of time on SNR (P < 0.001), as well as a significant negative effect of weight (P < 0.001).
conclusionsOur results suggest that despite significant delays from injection to imaging (due to comparison with standard PET/CT) compared to standard clinical operations and even in a population with average BMI > 25, images can be acquired as fast as 90 s/bed using the SiPM PET/CT and still result in very good image quality (average score > 4).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.