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.

Evaluation of lesion contrast in the walk-through long axial FOV PET scanner simulated with XCAT anthropomorphic phantoms.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the lesion contrast in a cost-effective long axial field of view (FOV) PET scanner, called the walk-through PET (WT-PET). The scanner consists of two flat detector panels covering the entire torso and head, scanning patients in an upright position for increased throughput. High-resolution, depth-of-interaction capable, monolithic detector technology is used to provide good spatial resolution and enable detection of smaller lesions. METHODS: Monte Carlo GATE simulations are used in conjunction with XCAT anthropomorphic phantoms to evaluate lesion contrast in lung, liver and breast for various lesion diameters (10, 7 and 5 mm), activity concentration ratios (8:1, 4:1 and 2:1) and patient BMIs (18-37). Images were reconstructed iteratively with listmode maximum likelihood expectation maximization, and contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) were obtained for the reconstructed lesions. RESULTS: Results shows notable variations in contrast recovery coefficients (CRC) across different lesion sizes and organ locations within the XCAT phantoms. Specifically, our findings reveal that 10 mm lesions consistently exhibit higher CRC compared to 7 mm and 5 mm lesions, with increases of approximately 54% and 330%, respectively, across all investigated organs. Moreover, high contrast recovery is observed in most liver lesions regardless of diameter or activity ratio (average CRC = 42%), as well as in the 10 mm lesions in the lung. Notably, for the 10 mm lesions, the liver demonstrates 42% and 62% higher CRC compared to the lung and breast, respectively. This trend remains consistent across lesion sizes, with the liver consistently exhibiting higher CRC values compared to the lung and breast: 7 mm lesions show an increase of 96% and 41%, while 5 mm lesions exhibit approximately 294% and 302% higher CRC compared to the lung and breast, respectively. CONCLUSION: A comparison with a conventional pixelated LSO long axial FOV PET shows similar performance, achieved at a reduced cost for the WT-PET due to a reduction in required number of detectors.

A simulation study of the system characteristics for a long axial FOV PET design based on monolithic BGO flat panels compared with a pixelated LSO cylindrical design.

BACKGROUND: Although a new generation of tomographs with a longer axial field-of-view called total-body PET have been developed, they are not widely utilized due to their high cost compared to conventional scanners. The newly designed walk-through total-body PET scanner is introduced as a high-throughput and cost-efficient alternative to total-body PET scanners, by making use of a flat panel geometry and lower cost, depth-of-interaction capable, monolithic BGO detectors. The main aim of the presented study is to evaluate through Monte Carlo simulation the system characteristics of the walk-through total-body PET scanner by comparing it with a Quadra-like total-body PET of similar attributes to the Siemens Biograph Vision Quadra. METHODS: The walk-through total-body PET is comprised of two flat detector panels, spaced 50 cm apart. Each panel, 70 [Formula: see text] 106 cm[Formula: see text] in size, consists of 280 BGO-based monolithic detectors. The Quadra-like TB-PET has been simulated based on the characteristics of the Biograph Vision Quadra, one of the most common total-body PET scanners with 106 cm of axial field-of-view, which is constructed with pixelated LSO scintillation crystals. The spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate performance, scatter fractions, and image quality of both scanners are simulated in the GATE simulation toolkit for comparison. RESULTS: Due to the DOI-capable detectors used in the walk-through total-body PET, the values of the spatial resolution of this scanner were all below 2 mm along directions parallel to the panels, and reached a maximum of 3.36 mm in the direction perpendicular to the panels. This resolution is a large improvement compared to the values of the Quadra-like TB-PET. The walk-through total-body PET uses its maximum sensitivity (154 cps/kBq) for data acquisition and image reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Based on the combination of very good spatial resolution and high sensitivity of the walk-through total-body PET, along with a 2.2 times lower scintillation crystal volume and 1.8 times lower SiPM surface, this scanner can be a very cost-efficient alternative for total-body PET scanners in cases where concomitant CT is not required.