Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Digital PET systems (dPET) improve lesion detectability as compared to PET systems with conventional photomultiplier tubes (cPET). We prospectively studied the performance of high-resolution digital PET scans in patients with cancer, as compared with high- and standard-resolution conventional PET scans, taking the acquisition order into account.

Methods

We included 212 patients with cancer, who were referred for disease staging or restaging. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT on a dPET scanner and on a cPET scanner in a randomized order. The scans were acquired immediately after each other. Three image reconstructions were generated: 1) standard-resolution (4 × 4 × 4 mm3 voxels) cPET, 2) high-resolution (2 × 2 × 2 mm3 voxels) cPET, and 3) high-resolution dPET. Two experienced PET readers visually assessed the three reconstructions side-by-side and ranked them according to scan preference, in an independent and blinded fashion.

Results

On high-resolution dPET, the PET readers detected more lesions or they had a higher diagnostic confidence than on high- and standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). High-resolution dPET was preferred in 90% of the cases, as compared to 44% for high-resolution cPET and 1% for standard-resolution cPET (p < 0.001). However, for the subgroup of patients where dPET was made first (n = 103, 61 ± 10 min after FDG administration) and cPET was made second (93 ± 15 min after FDG administration), no significant difference in preference was found between the high-resolution cPET and dPET reconstructions (p = 0.41).

Conclusions

DPET scanners in combination with high-resolution reconstructions clinically outperform cPET scanners with both high- and standard-resolution reconstructions as the PET readers identified more FDG-avid lesions, their diagnostic confidence was increased, and they visually preferred dPET. However, when dPET was made first, high-resolution dPET and high-resolution cPET showed similar performance, indicating the positive effect of a prolonged FDG uptake time. Therefore, high-resolution cPET in combination with a prolonged FDG uptake time can be considered as an alternative.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FDG-PET/CT:

Fluorodeoxoglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography

cPET:

Conventional PET

dPET:

Digital PET

High-resolution:

2 × 2 × 2 mm3 voxel reconstructions

Standard-resolution:

4 × 4 × 4 mm3 voxel reconstructions

dPET-first:

Digital PET scan was made first, conventional PET scan was made second

cPET-first:

Conventional PET scan was made first, digital PET scan was made second

References

  1. Farwell MD, Pryma DA, Mankoff DA. PET/CT imaging in cancer: current applications and future directions. Cancer. 2014;120:3433–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:4S-14S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen Y-K, Ding H-J, Su C-T, Shen Y-Y, Chen L-K, Liao AC, et al. Application of PET and PET/CT imaging for cancer screening. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:4103–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rousset O, Rahmim A, Alavi A, Zaidi H. Partial volume correction strategies in PET. PET clinics. 2007;2:235–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poeppel T, Krause B, Heusner T, Boy C, Bockisch A, Antoch G. PET/CT for the staging and follow-up of patients with malignancies. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:382–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wright CL, Binzel K, Zhang J, Knopp MV. 2017 Advanced functional tumor imaging and precision nuclear medicine enabled by digital PET technologies. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017;1:7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5260305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Surti S, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Conti M, Casey ME, Karp JS. Benefit of improved performance with state-of-the art digital PET/CT for lesion detection in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1684–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gnesin S, Kieffer C, Zeimpekis K, Papazyan J-P, Guignard R, Prior JO, et al. Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical 18 F-FDG protocols in digital PET/CT and comparison to conventional PMT-based PET/CT. EJNMMI phys. 2020;7:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Sluis J, De Jong J, Schaar J, Noordzij W, Van Snick P, Dierckx R, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1031–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1378–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Fuentes-Ocampo F, Camacho V, Fernández A, Ruiz A, et al. Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1383–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alberts I, Prenosil G, Sachpekidis C, Weitzel T, Shi K, Rominger A, et al. Digital versus analogue PET in [68 Ga] Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer: a matched-pair comparison. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:614–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuentes-Ocampo F, López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Paillahueque G, Camacho V, Duch J, et al. Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1745–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Salvadori J, Odille F, Verger A, Olivier P, Karcher G, Marie P-Y, et al. Head-to-head comparison between digital and analog PET of human and phantom images when optimized for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from small lesions. EJNMMI phys. 2020;7:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mavi A, Urhan M, Jian QY, Zhuang H, Houseni M, Cermik TF, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1440–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Xiu Y, Bhutani C, Dhurairaj T, Jian QY, Dadparvar S, Reddy S, et al. Dual-time point FDG PET imaging in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules with minimally increased metabolic activity. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:101–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Lagerweij MC, Arkies H, de Boer J, Oostdijk AH, et al. Improving the detection of small lesions using a state-of-the-art time-of-flight PET/CT system and small-voxel reconstructions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2015;43:21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Arkies H, Oostdijk AH, Francken AB, Bart J, et al. Diagnostic implications of a small-voxel reconstruction for loco-regional lymph node characterization in breast cancer patients using FDG-PET/CT. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Stevens H, Slump CH, Knollema S, Jager PL. Performance of digital PET compared with high-resolution conventional PET in patients with cancer. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1448–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grégoire V, Haustermans K, Geets X, Roels S, Lonneux M. PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard? J Nucl Med. 2007;48:68S-77S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koopman D, Jager PL, van Dalen JA. Small-voxel reconstructions significantly influence SUVs in PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1751–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vandenberghe S, Moskal P, Karp JS. State of the art in total body PET. EJNMMI phys. 2020;7:1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tessa Gerritse and Ellis Simons-Winters for their assistance in patient inclusion. Further, we thank the staff from Isala, Zwolle for their overall support.

Funding

This work was supported by a research collaboration regarding new PET technologies between the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala hospital and Philips Healthcare. The content of the article was solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025AB, Zwolle, Netherlands

    Tonke L. de Jong, Daniëlle Koopman, Aline Tegelaar, Joris D. van Dijk, Henk Stevens & Pieter L. Jager

  2. Department of Medical Physics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, Netherlands

    Jorn A. van Dalen

Authors
  1. Tonke L. de Jong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniëlle Koopman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorn A. van Dalen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aline Tegelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joris D. van Dijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henk Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pieter L. Jager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Daniëlle Koopman and Aline Tegelaar. Data analysis was performed by Piet Jager, Henk Stevens and Tonke de Jong. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Tonke de Jong and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tonke L. de Jong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no other potential conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

All participants gave written informed consent. The Medical Ethical Committee of our institute (METC Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands) approved the study protocol (NL52329.075.15) and the study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT03457506.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Jong, T.L., Koopman, D., van Dalen, J.A. et al. Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study. Ann Nucl Med 36, 756–764 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01758-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01758-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation