Inter‐scanner Aβ‐PET harmonization using barrel phantom spatial resolution matching
Authors: Ruwanpathirana Gihan P. , Williams Robert C. , Masters Colin L. , Rowe Christopher C. , Johnston Leigh A. , Davey Catherine E. 
Published: March 2024

INTRODUCTION

The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) is used to measure amyloid beta–positron emission tomography (Aβ‐PET) uptake in the brainDifferences in PET scanner technologies and image reconstruction techniques can lead to variability in PET images across scanners. This poses a challenge for Aβ‐PET studies conducted in multiple centers. The aim of harmonization is to achieve consistent Aβ‐PET measurements across different scanners. In this study, we propose an Aβ‐PET harmonization method of matching spatial resolution, as measured via a barrel phantom, across PET scanners. Our approach was validated using paired subject data, for which patients were imaged on multiple scanners.

METHODS

In this study, three different PET scanners were evaluated: the Siemens Biograph Vision 600, Siemens Biograph molecular computed tomography (mCT), and Philips Gemini TF64. A total of five, eight, and five subjects were each scanned twice with [18F]‐NAV4694 across Vision‐mCT, mCT‐Philips, and Vision‐Philips scanner pairs. The Vision and mCT scans were reconstructed using various iterations, subsets, and post‐reconstruction Gaussian smoothing, whereas only one reconstruction configuration was used for the Philips scans. The full‐width at half‐maximum (FWHM) of each reconstruction configuration was calculated using [18F]‐filled barrel phantom scans with the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) phantom analysis toolkit. Regional SUVRs were calculated from 72 brain regions using the automated anatomical labelling atlas 3 (AAL3) atlas for each subject and reconstruction configuration. Statistical similarity between SUVRs was assessed using paired (within subject) t‐tests for each pair of reconstructions across scanners; the higher the p‐value, the greater the similarity between the SUVRs.

RESULTS

Vision‐mCT harmonization: Vision reconstruction with FWHM = 4.10 mm and mCT reconstruction with FWHM = 4.30 mm gave the maximal statistical similarity (maximum p‐value) between regional SUVRs. Philips‐mCT harmonization: The FWHM of the Philips reconstruction was 8.2 mm and the mCT reconstruction with the FWHM of 9.35 mm, which gave the maximal statistical similarity between regional SUVRs. Philips–Vision harmonization: The Vision reconstruction with an FWHM of 9.1 mm gave the maximal statistical similarity between regional SUVRs when compared with the Philips reconstruction of 8.2 mm and were selected as the harmonized for each scanner pair.

CONCLUSION

Based on data obtained from three sets of participants, each scanned on a pair of PET scanners, it has been verified that using reconstruction configurations that produce matched‐barrel, phantom spatial resolutions results in maximally harmonized Aβ‐PET quantitation between scanner pairs. This finding is encouraging for the use of PET scanners in multi‐center trials or updates during longitudinal studies.

Highlights

Question: Does the process of matching the barrel phantom‐derived spatial resolution between scanners harmonize amyloid beta–standardized uptake value ratio (Aβ‐SUVR) quantitation?

Pertinent findings: It has been validated that reconstruction pairs with matched barrel phantom‐derived spatial resolution maximize the similarity between subjects paired Aβ‐PET (positron emission tomography) SUVR values recorded on two scanners.

Implications for patient care: Harmonization between scanners in multi‐center trials and PET camera updates in longitudinal studies can be achieved using a simple and efficient phantom measurement procedure, beneficial for the validity of Aβ‐PET quantitation measurements.