title: Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Three-dimensional positron emission tomography (3D PET) results in higher system sensitivity, with an associated increase in the detection of scatter and random coincidences. The objective of this work was to compare, from a clinical perspective, 3D and two-dimensional (2D) acquisitions in terms of whole-body (WB) PET image quality with a dedicated BGO PET system.
  
  
  METHODS
  2D and 3D WB emission acquisitions were carried out in 70 patients. Variable acquisition parameters in terms of time of emission acquisition per axial field of view (aFOV) and slice overlap between sequential aFOVs were used during the 3D acquisitions. 3D and 2D images were reconstructed using FORE+WLS and OSEM respectively. Scatter correction was performed by convolution subtraction and a model-based scatter correction in 2D and 3D respectively. All WB images were attenuation corrected using segmented transmission scans. Images were blindly assessed by three observers for the presence of artefacts, confidence in lesion detection and overall image quality using a scoring system.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D image quality were only obtained for 3D emission acquisitions of 3 min. No statistically significant differences were observed for image artefacts or lesion detectability scores. Image quality correlated significantly with patient weight for both modes of operation. Finally, no differences were seen in image artefact scores for the different axial slice overlaps considered, suggesting the use of five slice overlaps in 3D WB acquisitions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  3D WB imaging using a dedicated BGO-based PET scanner offers similar image quality to that obtained in 2D considering similar overall times of acquisitions.
authors.affiliation: U650 INSERM, Laboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Medicale (LaTIM), CHU Morvan, Brest, 29609, France. dimitris@univ-brest.fr
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Visvikis
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Griffiths
authors.forename: D C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Costa
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bomanji
authors.forename: P J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Ell
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D015588:Observer Variation; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D051598:Whole Body Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods