Skip to main content

Will ultra-extended field-of-view scanners be an expensive folly or the next clinical standard for PET/CT?

In a commentary within a landmark supplement to the Journal of Nuclear Medicine entitled Clinical PET: Its Time Has Come, Henry N. Wagner wrote, “Today’s medical practice is yesterday’s research. The bridge linking the two is technology assessment, which makes possible the acceptance or rejection of new technologies in the practice of medicine” [1]. This statement remains as valid today as it was 30 years ago. In a series of reviews by experts in the field, Cancer Imaging will investigate the latest evolution in positron emission tomography (PET) enabled by technological advances in instrumentation that are being adopted by the research community but offer the prospect of a revolution in the way clinical studies are performed.

As our readers will be aware, PET is now embedded in routine oncological practice as a vital diagnostic modality for the evaluation of cancer from diagnosis and staging through treatment planning to therapeutic response assessment and post-treatment surveillance. Combined with computed tomography as a hybrid imaging device, PET/CT has replaced stand-alone PET. Since first introduced in the 1970s [2], ring-configured PET scanners have gone through progressive technological enhancements that have included the removal of septa to allow 3-D imaging [3], improvements in the scintillation detector materials [4], and implementation of time-of-flight capability [5]. All these advances have increased the sensitivity of scanners to detect annihilation photons while improving image quality and quantification [6]. The capability to move patients through the detector ring enabled whole-body imaging [7], which is critical for oncological applications given the potential of cancers to metastasize widely. More recently, replacement of photomultiplier tubes by solid-state digital detectors and adding additional rows of detectors to increase the axial field-of-view (FOV) have further improved the sensitivity of PET devices. The current high-end digital PET/CT systems have performance characteristics unimaginable even a decade ago [8] and industrialization of production has kept the cost of these devices down in real terms, even though they remain significantly more expensive than analog scanners with a restricted axial FOV. A logical evolution of efforts to improve the sensitivity of PET/CT devices is to increase the extent of the body simultaneously covered by detectors.

The first “total-body” PET/CT, the μExplorer (United Imaging, China) was developed by Simon Cherry, Ramsay Badawi and co-workers [9,10,11]. With an axial FOV of approximately 2 m, this instrument allowed, for the first time, dynamic imaging of the biodistribution of PET tracers throughout the body [12] as well as unparalleled sensitivity for delayed imaging [13]. These features not only provide significant opportunities for radiopharmaceutical development but also for clinical practice by providing very rapid scanning sequences that allow increased patient throughput. Nevertheless, the weight of these devices, their increased dimensions and the cost of manufacture and maintenance as well as the need for an increased number of uptake rooms provide significant challenges for integrating this device into existing PET facilities. An alternative approach has been to develop a PET/CT capable of “total-organ” imaging. With an axial FOV of just over 1 m, the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT (Siemens Healthineers) provides similar opportunity to perform dynamic imaging of all the major organ systems from the brain to the pelvis simultaneously [14] and, by acquiring two bed positions or using continuous movement through the scanner, extremely sensitive whole-body imaging. In comparison with a state-of-the-art digital PET/CT the Biograph Vision 600 (Siemens Healthineers), itself a scanner with a substantially higher performance than most of the globally-installed PET/CT base, the ultra-extended FOV of the Quadra scanner yielded an 8–10-fold increment in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) depending on the radionuclide used [15]. With the same footprint as a standard FOV PET/CT and only moderately higher weight, this scanner can be installed in many existing PET facilities without major modifications but still carries the impediments of requiring more uptake rooms and a higher capital and maintenance cost. A further iteration of this concept has been developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania. The PennPET Explorer is a scalable version of an extended FOV PET/CT [16, 17], but it is not yet to our knowledge available commercially.

Given that almost all the evidence validating the utility of PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of a wide range of cancers was obtained using scanners with substantially inferior technical specifications, one might reasonably question whether there is much room to sufficiently improve on the diagnostic performance of PET/CT to justify the incremental complexity and cost of implementing these ultra-extended FOV scanners. If not, they may become a folly installed only in academic institutions which have the financial resources through various granting bodies to acquire and operate these sophisticated devices. However, there are potential reasons why these devices could also offer advantages in routine clinical practice as well as in research. For example, the very high sensitivity of the scanners may allow scanning times to be dramatically reduced, increasing patient comfort and convenience, while also augmenting departmental throughput with sufficient amortization of capital and maintenance costs to make them a viable alternative in sites with high demands for PET services.

With radiopharmaceuticals being a significant consumable cost in operating a PET facility, the increased sensitivity could also be leveraged to reduce administered activities required for high-quality imaging while, at the same time, reducing radiation burden to staff handling an increased throughput of patients, thereby amortizing staffing costs. Where good-manufacturing procedures are required for PET tracers, the ability to affray quality-assurance compliance testing costs across a larger number of patients per production batch provides efficiencies that could further improve cost-effectiveness. Cyclotrons are expensive to install and operate, while some radiopharmaceuticals have such low end-of-synthesis yields as to be uneconomic given the small number of cases that can be scanned from a production. Similarly, radionuclides with a short physical half-life decay while patients are being scanned and, therefore, quicker scans with lower administered activities allows the number of scans that can be performed from a production run to be increased. This is particularly true of carbon-11 tracers, which are attractive options for pharmacokinetic studies, and gallium-68 which are used to radiolabel various agents but most widely for prostate cancer detection with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand [18]. With germanium-68 generators being in increased demand and having a limited productive yield over time, there are significant potential benefits for clinical accessibility of reducing administered activity and doing quicker scans. These flow-on efficiencies in the radiopharmaceutical supply chain could also have a major impact on the availability of a wider range of PET tracers, particularly those with long physical half-lives that allow regional or international distribution but require relatively low administered activities due to dosimetric considerations. An example of this would be zirconium-89 [19]. Reducing administered activities has additional advantages for imaging children and pregnant women [20], as well as in people susceptible to the development of cancers that could benefit from molecular imaging screening but in whom life-time radiation exposure may be a constraining factor [21].

In a thematic series on total-body PET-CT, we have invited the developers and early adopters of this technology to provide insights into how they are using the unique capabilities of these scanners in research and their routine clinical practice, perspectives on the impact that they will have on radiopharmaceutical development and salutary warnings on the challenges that must be met in processing and analyzing the huge data files generated.

We hope that our readers will look forward to reading articles in this series as much as we are.

“Every once in a while, a new technology, an old problem, and a big idea turn into an innovation.”

- Dean Kamen, engineer, businessman and inventor of the Segway vehicle

To our mind, the combination of digital detectors with excellent time-of-flight capability and an extended FOV provide an innovation that addresses the perennial problems of limiting radiation dose to patients and staff members while getting adequate count statistics in a reasonable scan acquisition time. Leveraging economies of scale, greater efficiency in PET services could offset the high-capital cost of this technology. We believe that this will not simply be an evolution of molecular imaging but rather a revolution in the making.

References

  1. Wagner HN. Clinical PET: its time has come. J Nucl Med. 1991;32(4):561–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ter-Pogossian MM, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA. A positron-emission transaxial tomograph for nuclear imaging (PETT). Radiology. 1975;114(1):89–98.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muehllehner G, Karp JS. Positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R117–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Melcher CL. Scintillation crystals for PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(6):1051–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mullani NA, Markham J, Ter-Pogossian MM. Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980;21(11):1095–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(13):2072–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ, Hoh CK, Schiepers C, Rosenqvist G, Hawkins RA, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography: part I. methods and performance characteristics. J Nucl Med. 1992;33(6):1191–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. López-Mora DA, Carrió I, Flotats A. Digital PET vs analog PET: clinical implications? Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52(3):302–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS, Moses WW, Price P, Jones T. Total-body imaging: transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(381):eaaf6169.

  10. Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, Qi J, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):3–12.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Xu T, Price PM, et al. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER Total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):299–303.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang X, Xie Z, Berg E, Judenhofer MS, Liu W, Xu T, et al. Total-body dynamic reconstruction and parametric imaging on the uEXPLORER. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(2):285–91.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, Omidvari N, Leung EK, Abdelhafez YG, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER Total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2-2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(6):861–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sari H, Mingels C, Alberts I, Hu J, Buesser D, Shah V, et al. First results on kinetic modelling and parametric imaging of dynamic 18F-FDG datasets from a long axial FOV PET scanner in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(6):1997–2009.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alberts I, Hünermund JN, Prenosil G, Mingels C, Bohn KP, Viscione M, et al. Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the biograph vision Quadra with the biograph vision PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2395–404.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Karp JS, Viswanath V, Geagan MJ, Muehllehner G, Pantel AR, Parma MJ, et al. PennPET Explorer: design and preliminary performance of a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):136–43.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pantel AR, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Dubroff JG, Muehllehner G, Parma MJ, et al. PennPET Explorer: human imaging on a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):144–51.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1208–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Berg E, Gill H, Marik J, Ogasawara A, Williams S, van Dongen G, et al. Total-body PET and highly stable chelators together enable meaningful 89Zr-antibody-PET studies up to 30 days post-injection. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(3):453–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dow E, Freimund A, Smith K, Hicks RJ, Jurcevic P, Shackleton M, et al. Cancer diagnoses following abnormal noninvasive prenatal testing: a case series, literature review, and proposed management model. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:1001–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Amar L, Pacak K, Steichen O, Akker SA, Aylwin SJB, Baudin E, et al. International consensus on initial screening and follow-up of asymptomatic SDHx mutation carriers. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2021;17(7):435–44.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The article was initially written by Rodney J Hicks and then edited and approved by Annick van den Abeele. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney J. Hicks.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Professor Hicks is the Founder of PreMIT Pty Ltd and acts as a Director and Chief Medical Officer of this company which is in the process of installing a Siemens Vision Quadra PET/CT to perform research and development into novel PET tracers.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hicks, R.J., Van den Abbeele, A.D. Will ultra-extended field-of-view scanners be an expensive folly or the next clinical standard for PET/CT?. Cancer Imaging 22, 49 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00486-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00486-y