RESUMO
Objective.Using Monte-Carlo simulations, we evaluated the physical performance of a hypothetical state-of-the-art clinical PET scanner with adaptive axial field-of-view (AFOV) based on the validated GATE model of the Siemens Biograph VisionTMPET/CT scanner.Approach.Vision consists of 16 compact PET rings, each consisting of 152 mini-blocks of 5 × 5 Lutetium Oxyorthosilicate crystals (3.2 × 3.2 × 20 mm3). The Vision 25.6 cm AFOV was extended by adopting (i) a sparse mini-block ring (SBR) configuration of 49.6 cm AFOV, with all mini-block rings interleaved with 16 mm axial gaps, or (ii) a sparse mini-block checkerboard (SCB) configuration of 51.2 cm AFOV, with all mini-blocks interleaved with gaps of 16 mm (transaxial) × 16 mm (axial) width in checkerboard pattern. For sparse configurations, a 'limited' continuous bed motion (limited-CBM) acquisition was employed to extend AFOVs by 2.9 cm. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, image quality (IQ), NECR and scatter fraction were assessed per NEMA NU2-2012.Main Results.All IQ phantom spheres were distinguishable with all configurations. SBR and SCB percent contrast recovery (% CR) and background variability (% BV) were similar (p-value > 0.05). Compared to Vision, SBR and SCB %CRs were similar (p-values > 0.05). However, SBR and SCB %BVs were deteriorated by 30% and 26% respectively (p-values < 0.05). SBR, SCB and Vision exhibited system sensitivities of 16.6, 16.8, and 15.8 kcps MBq-1, NECRs of 311 kcps @35 kBq cc-1, 266 kcps @25.8 kBq cc-1, and 260 kcps @27.8 kBq cc-1, and scatter fractions of 31.2%, 32.4%, and 32.6%, respectively. SBR and SCB exhibited a smoother sensitivity reduction and noise enhancement rate from AFOV center to its edges. SBR and SCB attained comparable spatial resolution in all directions (p-value > 0.05), yet, up to 1.5 mm worse than Vision (p-values < 0.05).Significance.The proposed sparse configurations may offer a clinically adoptable solution for cost-effective adaptive AFOV PET with either highly-sensitive or long-AFOV acquisitions.