Comments on: “Time-of-Flight” takes off in PET/CT http://tomography.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/time-of-flight-takes-off-in-petct/ Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:46:43 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Paul Michael Stanley http://tomography.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/time-of-flight-takes-off-in-petct/#comment-64 Paul Michael Stanley Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:47:02 +0000 http://tomography.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/time-of-flight-takes-off-in-petct/#comment-64 Scott, Your facts are very inaccurate. It sounds to me like you are quoting the timing resolution from the Discovery RX and it's failed attemppt to implement Time-of-Flight. That is the system you would have experience with from Duke correct? You are not a Time of Flight user with first hand experience with the hardware are you? Your data stating that commerical implementation of TOF yields more like 950 psec timing res. shows your unfamiliarity with the only commercial product supporting this capability. The timing resolution on the systems I am familiar with are nowhere near your stated figure...as a matter of fact the HUP system is reporting at 575 psec! It's also not accurate to cite any NEMA published specs for the TOF based system as NEMA doesn't have any TOF based spec measurements at this time. Interesting though to hear you try and minimize the quality gain "even if it was 900 psec". 1000psec would improve positional accuracy to a space of less than 12 cm. This is compared to EVERY OTHER PET SCANNERS capability of being able to position no better than 60 cm or the entire FOV. 12 cm vs 60 cm? C'mon? How can one minimize even that significant gain? Please read Dr. Cherry's "Of Mice and Men....." article from JNM, Dec 2007. TOF - One of the 5 biggest advancements in PET Scan technology. It's very disappointing to know that this industry we work in is continuously being held back from applauding the advances in capability because of vendor competition. This same competition should strive to give our field more awarenes to the medical world thru innovation, but instead it forces people into downplaying what they themselves don't have as being "not relevant". PSF is used in the SMS branded HD and while very beneficial for recon, how would you argue their claims to derive 2mm spatial resolution as a result of it? Very misleading to say the least, correct? Your information about PSF is like reading a Siemens brochure...... PSF does not match signal to noise. PSF does not improve uniformity of FOV. Siemens increase in S2N is due to increased material usage and extended axial FOV via TrueV and their new claim to uniform FOV is due to TrueX not the PSF (aka HDPET). Anyway, to not dilute my intent - all of the advancements in PET, whether it be HD, Vue Point, or TruFLight and Time of Flight are wonderful. None of them should be downplayed, but Time of Flight specifically is in a league of it's own and represents what PET has been working toward demonstrating towards next generation capability. Scott,

Your facts are very inaccurate. It sounds to me like you are quoting the timing resolution from the Discovery RX and it’s failed attemppt to implement Time-of-Flight. That is the system you would have experience with from Duke correct? You are not a Time of Flight user with first hand experience with the hardware are you?

Your data stating that commerical implementation of TOF yields more like 950 psec timing res. shows your unfamiliarity with the only commercial product supporting this capability. The timing resolution on the systems I am familiar with are nowhere near your stated figure…as a matter of fact the HUP system is reporting at 575 psec! It’s also not accurate to cite any NEMA published specs for the TOF based system as NEMA doesn’t have any TOF based spec measurements at this time.

Interesting though to hear you try and minimize the quality gain “even if it was 900 psec”. 1000psec would improve positional accuracy to a space of less than 12 cm. This is compared to EVERY OTHER PET SCANNERS capability of being able to position no better than 60 cm or the entire FOV. 12 cm vs 60 cm? C’mon? How can one minimize even that significant gain?

Please read Dr. Cherry’s “Of Mice and Men…..” article from JNM, Dec 2007. TOF – One of the 5 biggest advancements in PET Scan technology.

It’s very disappointing to know that this industry we work in is continuously being held back from applauding the advances in capability because of vendor competition. This same competition should strive to give our field more awarenes to the medical world thru innovation, but instead it forces people into downplaying what they themselves don’t have as being “not relevant”.

PSF is used in the SMS branded HD and while very beneficial for recon, how would you argue their claims to derive 2mm spatial resolution as a result of it? Very misleading to say the least, correct?
Your information about PSF is like reading a Siemens brochure…… PSF does not match signal to noise. PSF does not improve uniformity of FOV. Siemens increase in S2N is due to increased material usage and extended axial FOV via TrueV and their new claim to uniform FOV is due to TrueX not the PSF (aka HDPET).

Anyway, to not dilute my intent – all of the advancements in PET, whether it be HD, Vue Point, or TruFLight and Time of Flight are wonderful. None of them should be downplayed, but Time of Flight specifically is in a league of it’s own and represents what PET has been working toward demonstrating towards next generation capability.

]]> By: Scott Welpe, CNMT http://tomography.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/time-of-flight-takes-off-in-petct/#comment-35 Scott Welpe, CNMT Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:26:20 +0000 http://tomography.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/time-of-flight-takes-off-in-petct/#comment-35 Time of flight can not offer "reduced noise in image data, higher image quality, shorter imaging times and lower dose to the patient" in PET or PET•CT imaging. My rebuttal being based around the use of the word ‘and’. Time of flight will reduce image noise successfully but as soon as imaging times or dose are reduced the loss of image statistics/counts puts image quality back where you started. The issue with the current commercial offering time of flight is that the timing resolution that makes ToF possible increases to around 900 picoseconds from the stated 650 picoseconds. This reduces the expected image quality gain. The gain from ToF is seen in large patients but offers little to no value in head and neck imaging nor pediatric or small patients. Additionally there is no improvement in resolution in ToF, this would require about a 20 fold improvement in the current detector electronics to achieve this. There are other commercial offerings that improve signal to noise and resolution like the use of point spread function (PSF). This approach matches the signal to noise improvements of ToF but is independent of dose and improves resolution. Traditionally resolution degrades as you move from the center of the field of view, PSF uniquely offers uniform resolution throughout the entire field. Time of flight can not offer “reduced noise in image data, higher image quality, shorter imaging times and lower dose to the patient” in PET or PET•CT imaging. My rebuttal being based around the use of the word ‘and’. Time of flight will reduce image noise successfully but as soon as imaging times or dose are reduced the loss of image statistics/counts puts image quality back where you started. The issue with the current commercial offering time of flight is that the timing resolution that makes ToF possible increases to around 900 picoseconds from the stated 650 picoseconds. This reduces the expected image quality gain. The gain from ToF is seen in large patients but offers little to no value in head and neck imaging nor pediatric or small patients. Additionally there is no improvement in resolution in ToF, this would require about a 20 fold improvement in the current detector electronics to achieve this.

There are other commercial offerings that improve signal to noise and resolution like the use of point spread function (PSF). This approach matches the signal to noise improvements of ToF but is independent of dose and improves resolution. Traditionally resolution degrades as you move from the center of the field of view, PSF uniquely offers uniform resolution throughout the entire field.

]]>