Evaluation of the Small-animal Nano Scan PET/CT System using 89Zr

Author(s): Khalid Alzimami*, Sitah Alanazi, Magdi Gannam, Ahmad Alanazi, Ibrahim Aljamaz, Suliman Alyanbawi, Basem Alotaibi, Yousif Almalki, Abdelmoneim Sulieman, Salem Sassi

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 17 , Issue 2 , 2021


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Introduction: The purpose of the present work was to evaluate the imaging characteristics of 89Zr-PET in comparison with those obtained using fluorine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose (18FFDG) PET (a gold standard tracer in PET imaging) using a small-animal NanoScan PET/CT scanner.

Methods: The system’s spatial resolution, sensitivity, uniformity, and image quality were measured on a Nano Scan small-animal PET/CT scanner according to the NEMA NU4-2008 protocols. For reconstruction images, we used 2D and 3D reconstruction algorithms. The reconstruction methods included filter back projection (FBP), the ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm, and the 3D Tera-Tomo algorithm, which are developed for the NanoScan small-animal PET/CT scanner.

Results: The results obtained showed a significant difference in the spatial resolution for 89Zr as compared to 22Na and 18F when using a 2D reconstruction algorithm. The spatial resolution values were much enhanced by using the 3D Tera-Tomo reconstruction for each isotope, the Full width at half maximum (FWHM) values was less than 1 for all isotopes at the center of the field of view (FOV). This difference in spatial resolution is dependent on the positron range, energy, and the reconstruction method.

Conclusion: The long half-life of 89Zr makes it an ideal positron emitter for performing immuno- PET, which is matched with the biological half-life of intact mAbs.89Zr can also give several advantages over other long half-life positron emitters in relation to the overall imaging performance because of its relatively short positron range and simpler decay scheme. The values of 89Zr sensitivity that were obtained in the present study were less than those of previous studies.

Keywords: NanoScan, small-animal PET/CT, 89Zr-PET, nuclear medicine, filter back projection (FBP), the ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM).

[1]
Kollenda SA, Klose J, Knuschke T, et al. In vivo biodistribution of calcium phosphate nanoparticles after intravascular, intramuscular, intratumoral, and soft tissue administration in mice investigated by small animal PET/CT. Acta Biomater 2020; 109: 244-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.03.031] [PMID: 32251787]
[2]
Jabeen N, Rasheed R, Rafique A, Murtaza G. The established nuclear medicine modalities for imaging of bone metastases. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2019; 15(9): 819-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573405614666180327122548] [PMID: 32008530]
[3]
Hutchins GD, Miller MA, Soon VC, Receveur T. Small animal PET imaging. ILAR J 2008; 49(1): 54-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilar.49.1.54] [PMID: 18172333]
[4]
Miyake KK, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, et al. Performance evaluation of a new dedicated breast PET scanner using NEMA NU4-2008 Standards. J Nucl Med 2014; 55(7): 1198-203.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.131565] [PMID: 24812244]
[5]
Lee YS, Kim JS, Kim JY, Kim BI, Lim SM, Kim HJ. Spatial resolution and image qualities of Zr-89 on Siemens Biograph TruePoint PET/CT. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2015; 30(1): 27-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2014.1709] [PMID: 25549151]
[6]
Youn H, Hong KJ. In vivo Noninvasive Small Animal Molecular Imaging. Osong Public Health Res Perspect 2012; 3(1): 48-59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phrp.2012.02.002] [PMID: 24159487]
[7]
Rowland DJ, Cherry SR. Small-animal preclinical nuclear medicine instrumentation and methodology. Semin Nucl Med 2008; 38(3): 209-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.01.004] [PMID: 18396180]
[8]
Nagy K, Tóth M, Major P, et al. Performance evaluation of the small-animal nanoScan PET/MRI system. J Nucl Med 2013; 54(10): 1825-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.119065] [PMID: 23990683]
[9]
Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Treatment of axial data in three-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med 1987; 28(11): 1717-24.
[PMID: 3499493]
[10]
Defrise MA. Factorization method for the 3d x-ray transform. Inverse Probl 1995; 11: 983-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/11/5/003]
[11]
Alfuraih A, Alzimami K, Ma AK, Alghamdi A, Al Jammaz I. Effective Dose to Immuno-PET Patients due to Metastable Impurities in Cyclotron-produced zirconium-89. Radiat Phys Chem 2014; 104: 145-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2013.11.003]
[12]
Goertzen AL, Bao Q, Bergeron M, et al. NEMA NU 4-2008 comparison of preclinical PET imaging systems. J Nucl Med 2012; 53(8): 1300-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.099382] [PMID: 22699999]
[13]
Vanhove C, Bankstahl JP, Krämer SD, Visser E, Belcari N, Vandenberghe S. Accurate molecular imaging of small animals taking into account animal models, handling, anaesthesia, quality control and imaging system performance. EJNMMI Phys 2015; 2(1): 31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-015-0135-y] [PMID: 26560138]
[14]
Söderlund V, Larsson SA, Jacobsson H. Reduction of FDG uptake in brown adipose tissue in clinical patients by a single dose of propranolol. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34(7): 1018-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0318-9] [PMID: 17225118]
[15]
Yao R, Lecomte R, Crawford ES. Small-animal PET: what is it, and why do we need it? J Nucl Med Technol 2012; 40(3): 157-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.111.098632] [PMID: 22582006]
[16]
Kemerink GJ, Visser MG, Franssen R, et al. Effect of the positron range of 18F, 68Ga and 124I on PET/CT in lung-equivalent materials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38(5): 940-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1732-1] [PMID: 21287170]
[17]
Dahle TJ. Performance Evaluation of a Small-animal PET/CT System 2014. Available at: http://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/8546
[18]
Kumar R, Kumar R, Kumar V, Malhotra R. Potential clinical implication of (18) F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosis of periprosthetic infection and its comparison with (18) F-Fluoride PET/CT. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60(3): 315-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12444] [PMID: 26956663]
[19]
Disselhorst JA, Brom M, Laverman P, et al. Image-quality assessment for several positron emitters using the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards in the Siemens Inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2010; 51(4): 610-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.068858] [PMID: 20237025]
[20]
Snyder DL, Miller MI, Thomas LJ, Politte DG. Noise and edge artifacts in maximum-likelihood reconstructions for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1987; 6(3): 228-38.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.1987.4307831] [PMID: 18244025]
[21]
Üstün F, Taştekin E, Taş A, Altun GD. The clinical significance of incidental parotid uptake in a PET/CT study: A diagnostic algorithm. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2019; 15(3): 326-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573405614666171213160244] [PMID: 31989884]
[22]
Binderup T, El-Ali H, Ambrosini V, et al. Molecular imaging with small animal PET/CT. Curr Med Imaging 2011; 7(3): 234-47.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157340511796411221]
[23]
Bradshaw TJ, Voorbach MJ, Reuter DR, Giamis AM, Mudd SR, Beaver JD. Image quality of Zr-89 PET imaging in the Siemens microPET Focus 220 preclinical scanner. Mol Imaging Biol 2016; 18(3): 377-85.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-015-0903-z] [PMID: 26493052]


open access plus

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 17
ISSUE: 2
Year: 2021
Published on: 12 October, 2020
Page: [296 - 305]
Pages: 10
DOI: 10.2174/1573405616666201012154548

Article Metrics

PDF: 28
HTML: 5