Walk-through flat panel total-body PET: a patient-centered design for high throughput imaging at lower cost using DOI-capable high-resolution monolithic detectors.

PURPOSE: Long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) systems have a much higher sensitivity than standard axial field-of-view (SAFOV) PET systems for imaging the torso or full body, which allows faster and/or lower dose imaging. Despite its very high sensitivity, current total-body PET (TB-PET) throughput is limited by patient handling (positioning on the bed) and often a shortage of available personnel. This factor, combined with high system costs, makes it hard to justify the implementation of these systems for many academic and nearly all routine nuclear medicine departments. We, therefore, propose a novel, cost-effective, dual flat panel TB-PET system for patients in upright standing positions to avoid the time-consuming positioning on a PET-CT table; the walk-through (WT) TB-PET. We describe a patient-centered, flat panel PET design that offers very efficient patient throughput and uses monolithic detectors (with BGO or LYSO) with depth-of-interaction (DOI) capabilities and high intrinsic spatial resolution. We compare system sensitivity, component costs, and patient throughput of the proposed WT-TB-PET to a SAFOV (= 26 cm) and a LAFOV (= 106 cm) LSO PET systems. METHODS: Patient width, height (= top head to start of thighs) and depth (= distance from the bed to front of patient) were derived from 40 randomly selected PET-CT scans to define the design dimensions of the WT-TB-PET. We compare this new PET system to the commercially available Siemens Biograph Vision 600 (SAFOV) and Siemens Quadra (LAFOV) PET-CT in terms of component costs, system sensitivity, and patient throughput. System cost comparison was based on estimating the cost of the two main components in the PET system (Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs) and scintillators). Sensitivity values were determined using Gate Monte Carlo simulations. Patient throughput times (including CT and scout scan, patient positioning on bed and transfer) were recorded for 1 day on a Siemens Vision 600 PET. These timing values were then used to estimate the expected patient throughput (assuming an equal patient radiotracer injected activity to patients and considering differences in system sensitivity and time-of-flight information) for WT-TB-PET, SAFOV and LAFOV PET. RESULTS: The WT-TB-PET is composed of two flat panels; each is 70 cm wide and 106 cm high, with a 50-cm gap between both panels. These design dimensions were justified by the patient sizes measured from the 40 random PET-CT scans. Each panel consists of 14 × 20 monolithic BGO detector blocks that are 50 × 50 × 16 mm in size and are coupled to a readout with 6 × 6 mm SiPMs arrays. For the WT-TB-PET, the detector surface is reduced by a factor of 1.9 and the scintillator volume by a factor of 2.2 compared to LAFOV PET systems, while demonstrating comparable sensitivity and much better uniform spatial resolution (< 2 mm in all directions over the FOV). The estimated component cost for the WT-TB-PET is 3.3 × lower than that of a 106 cm LAFOV system and only 20% higher than the PET component costs of a SAFOV. The estimated maximum number of patients scanned on a standard 8-h working day increases from 28 (for SAFOV) to 53-60 (for LAFOV in limited/full acceptance) to 87 (for the WT-TB-PET). By scanning faster (more patients), the amount of ordered activity per patient can be reduced drastically: the WT-TB-PET requires 66% less ordered activity per patient than a SAFOV. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a monolithic BGO or LYSO-based WT-TB-PET system with DOI measurements that departs from the classical patient positioning on a table and allows patients to stand upright between two flat panels. The WT-TB-PET system provides a solution to achieve a much lower cost TB-PET approaching the cost of a SAFOV system. High patient throughput is increased by fast patient positioning between two vertical flat panel detectors of high sensitivity. High spatial resolution (< 2 mm) uniform over the FOV is obtained by using DOI-capable monolithic scintillators.

The potential of a medium-cost long axial FOV PET system for nuclear medicine departments.

PURPOSE: Total body positron emission tomography (TB-PET) has recently been introduced in nuclear medicine departments. There is a large interest in these systems, but for many centers, the high acquisition cost makes it very difficult to justify their current operational budget. Here, we propose medium-cost long axial FOV scanners as an alternative. METHODS: Several medium-cost long axial FOV designs are described with their advantages and drawbacks. We describe their potential for higher throughput, more cost-effective scanning, a larger group of indications, and novel research opportunities. The wider spread of TB-PET can also lead to the fast introduction of new tracers (at a low dose), new methodologies, and optimized workflows. CONCLUSIONS: A medium-cost TB-PET would be positioned between the current standard PET-CT and the full TB-PET systems in investment but recapitulate most advantages of full TB-PET. These systems could be more easily justified financially in a standard academic or large private nuclear medicine department and still have ample research options.