View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Realistic total‐body J‐PET geometry optimization: Monte Carlo study.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Realistic total‐body J‐PET geometry optimization: Monte Carlo study.
Authors: Baran, Jakub1,2,3 (AUTHOR) jakubbaran92@gmail.com, Krzemien, Wojciech2,3,4 (AUTHOR), Parzych, Szymon1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Raczyński, Lech5 (AUTHOR), Bała, Mateusz5 (AUTHOR), Coussat, Aurélien1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Chug, Neha1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Czerwiński, Eryk1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Curceanu, Catalina Oana6 (AUTHOR), Dadgar, Meysam1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Dulski, Kamil1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Eliyan, Kavya1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Gajewski, Jan7 (AUTHOR), Gajos, Aleksander1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Hiesmayr, Beatrix C.8 (AUTHOR), Kacprzak, Krzysztof1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Kapłon, Łukasz1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Klimaszewski, Konrad5 (AUTHOR), Korcyl, Grzegorz1,2,3 (AUTHOR), Kozik, Tomasz1,2,3 (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Physics. May2025, Vol. 52 Issue 5, p2961-2975. 15p.
Subjects: Positron emission tomography, Cost effectiveness, Monte Carlo method, Whole body imaging, Scintillators
Abstract: Background: Total‐body (TB) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is one of the most promising medical diagnostics modalities, opening new perspectives for personalized medicine, low‐dose imaging, multi‐organ dynamic imaging or kinetic modeling. The high sensitivity provided by total‐body technology can be advantageous for novel tomography methods like positronium imaging, demanding the registration of triple coincidences. Currently, state‐of‐the‐art PET scanners use inorganic scintillators. However, the high acquisition cost reduces the accessibility of TB PET technology. Several efforts are ongoing to mitigate this problem. Among the alternatives, the Jagiellonian PET (J‐PET) technology, based on axially arranged plastic scintillator strips, offers a low‐cost alternative solution for TB PET. Purpose: The work aimed to compare five total‐body J‐PET geometries with plastic scintillators suitable for multi‐organ and positronium tomography as a possible next‐generation J‐PET scanner design. Methods: We present comparative studies of performance characteristics of the cost‐effective total‐body PET scanners using J‐PET technology. We investigated in silico five TB scanner geometries, varying the number of rings, scanner radii, and other parameters. Monte Carlo simulations of the anthropomorphic XCAT phantom, the extended 2‐m sensitivity line source and positronium sensitivity phantoms were used to assess the performance of the geometries. Two hot spheres were placed in the lungs and in the liver of the XCAT phantom to mimic the pathological changes. We compared the sensitivity profiles and performed quantitative analysis of the reconstructed images by using quality metrics such as contrast recovery coefficient, background variability and root mean squared error. The studies are complemented by the determination of sensitivity for the positronium lifetime tomography and the relative cost analysis of the studied setups. Results: The analysis of the reconstructed XCAT images reveals the superiority of the seven‐ring scanners over the three‐ring setups. However, the three‐ring scanners would be approximately 2–3 times cheaper. The peak sensitivity values for two‐gamma vary from 20 to 34 cps/kBq and are dominated by the differences in geometrical acceptance of the scanners. The sensitivity curves for the positronium tomography have a similar shape to the two‐gamma sensitivity profiles. The peak values are lower compared to the two‐gamma cases, from about 20–28 times, with a maximum value of 1.66 cps/kBq. This can be contrasted with the 50‐cm one‐layer J‐PET modular scanner used to perform the first in‐vivo positronium imaging with a sensitivity of 0.06 cps/kBq. Conclusions: The results show the feasibility of multi‐organ imaging of all the systems to be considered for the next generation of TB J‐PET designs. Among the scanner parameters, the most important ones are related to the axial field‐of‐view coverage. The two‐gamma sensitivity and XCAT image reconstruction analyzes show the advantage of seven‐ring scanners. However, the cost of the scintillator materials and SiPMs is more than two times higher for the longer modalities compared to the three‐ring solutions. Nevertheless, the relative cost for all the scanners is about 10–4 times lower compared to the cost of the uExplorer. These properties coupled together with J‐PET cost‐effectiveness and triggerless acquisition mode enabling three‐gamma positronium imaging, make the J‐PET technology an attractive solution for broad application in clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 185030411
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Realistic total‐body J‐PET geometry optimization: Monte Carlo study.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baran%2C+Jakub%22">Baran, Jakub</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> jakubbaran92@gmail.com</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Krzemien%2C+Wojciech%22">Krzemien, Wojciech</searchLink><relatesTo>2,3,4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Parzych%2C+Szymon%22">Parzych, Szymon</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Raczyński%2C+Lech%22">Raczyński, Lech</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bała%2C+Mateusz%22">Bała, Mateusz</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Coussat%2C+Aurélien%22">Coussat, Aurélien</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chug%2C+Neha%22">Chug, Neha</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Czerwiński%2C+Eryk%22">Czerwiński, Eryk</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Curceanu%2C+Catalina+Oana%22">Curceanu, Catalina Oana</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dadgar%2C+Meysam%22">Dadgar, Meysam</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dulski%2C+Kamil%22">Dulski, Kamil</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eliyan%2C+Kavya%22">Eliyan, Kavya</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gajewski%2C+Jan%22">Gajewski, Jan</searchLink><relatesTo>7</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gajos%2C+Aleksander%22">Gajos, Aleksander</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hiesmayr%2C+Beatrix+C%2E%22">Hiesmayr, Beatrix C.</searchLink><relatesTo>8</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kacprzak%2C+Krzysztof%22">Kacprzak, Krzysztof</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kapłon%2C+Łukasz%22">Kapłon, Łukasz</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Klimaszewski%2C+Konrad%22">Klimaszewski, Konrad</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Korcyl%2C+Grzegorz%22">Korcyl, Grzegorz</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kozik%2C+Tomasz%22">Kozik, Tomasz</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Physics%22">Medical Physics</searchLink>. May2025, Vol. 52 Issue 5, p2961-2975. 15p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positron+emission+tomography%22">Positron emission tomography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cost+effectiveness%22">Cost effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Monte+Carlo+method%22">Monte Carlo method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Whole+body+imaging%22">Whole body imaging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scintillators%22">Scintillators</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Total‐body (TB) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is one of the most promising medical diagnostics modalities, opening new perspectives for personalized medicine, low‐dose imaging, multi‐organ dynamic imaging or kinetic modeling. The high sensitivity provided by total‐body technology can be advantageous for novel tomography methods like positronium imaging, demanding the registration of triple coincidences. Currently, state‐of‐the‐art PET scanners use inorganic scintillators. However, the high acquisition cost reduces the accessibility of TB PET technology. Several efforts are ongoing to mitigate this problem. Among the alternatives, the Jagiellonian PET (J‐PET) technology, based on axially arranged plastic scintillator strips, offers a low‐cost alternative solution for TB PET. Purpose: The work aimed to compare five total‐body J‐PET geometries with plastic scintillators suitable for multi‐organ and positronium tomography as a possible next‐generation J‐PET scanner design. Methods: We present comparative studies of performance characteristics of the cost‐effective total‐body PET scanners using J‐PET technology. We investigated in silico five TB scanner geometries, varying the number of rings, scanner radii, and other parameters. Monte Carlo simulations of the anthropomorphic XCAT phantom, the extended 2‐m sensitivity line source and positronium sensitivity phantoms were used to assess the performance of the geometries. Two hot spheres were placed in the lungs and in the liver of the XCAT phantom to mimic the pathological changes. We compared the sensitivity profiles and performed quantitative analysis of the reconstructed images by using quality metrics such as contrast recovery coefficient, background variability and root mean squared error. The studies are complemented by the determination of sensitivity for the positronium lifetime tomography and the relative cost analysis of the studied setups. Results: The analysis of the reconstructed XCAT images reveals the superiority of the seven‐ring scanners over the three‐ring setups. However, the three‐ring scanners would be approximately 2–3 times cheaper. The peak sensitivity values for two‐gamma vary from 20 to 34 cps/kBq and are dominated by the differences in geometrical acceptance of the scanners. The sensitivity curves for the positronium tomography have a similar shape to the two‐gamma sensitivity profiles. The peak values are lower compared to the two‐gamma cases, from about 20–28 times, with a maximum value of 1.66 cps/kBq. This can be contrasted with the 50‐cm one‐layer J‐PET modular scanner used to perform the first in‐vivo positronium imaging with a sensitivity of 0.06 cps/kBq. Conclusions: The results show the feasibility of multi‐organ imaging of all the systems to be considered for the next generation of TB J‐PET designs. Among the scanner parameters, the most important ones are related to the axial field‐of‐view coverage. The two‐gamma sensitivity and XCAT image reconstruction analyzes show the advantage of seven‐ring scanners. However, the cost of the scintillator materials and SiPMs is more than two times higher for the longer modalities compared to the three‐ring solutions. Nevertheless, the relative cost for all the scanners is about 10–4 times lower compared to the cost of the uExplorer. These properties coupled together with J‐PET cost‐effectiveness and triggerless acquisition mode enabling three‐gamma positronium imaging, make the J‐PET technology an attractive solution for broad application in clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=185030411
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/mp.17627
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 2961
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Positron emission tomography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cost effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Monte Carlo method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Whole body imaging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scintillators
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Realistic total‐body J‐PET geometry optimization: Monte Carlo study.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baran, Jakub
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Krzemien, Wojciech
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Parzych, Szymon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Raczyński, Lech
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bała, Mateusz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coussat, Aurélien
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chug, Neha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Czerwiński, Eryk
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Curceanu, Catalina Oana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dadgar, Meysam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dulski, Kamil
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eliyan, Kavya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gajewski, Jan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gajos, Aleksander
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hiesmayr, Beatrix C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kacprzak, Krzysztof
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kapłon, Łukasz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Klimaszewski, Konrad
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Korcyl, Grzegorz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kozik, Tomasz
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Text: May2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00942405
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Physics
              Type: main
ResultId 1