The PEM Flex Solo II (Naviscan, Inc., San Diego, CA) is currently the only commercially available positron emission mammography (PEM) scanner. This scanner does not apply corrections for count rate effects, attenuation, or scatter during image reconstruction, potentially affecting the quantitative accuracy of images. The aim of this work is to measure the overall quantitative accuracy of the PEM Flex system and to determine the individual contributions of error from count rate effects, attenuation, and scatter.

Methods:

Gelatin phantoms were designed to simulate breasts of different thicknesses (4–12 cm) with varying uniform background activity concentration (AC) $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0001$ , cysts, and lesions (2:1, 5:1, and 10:1 lesion-to-background ratios). The overall error was calculated from ROI measurements in the phantoms with a clinically relevant background AC $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0002$ . The error due to count rate effects was determined by comparing the overall error at multiple background AC to the error at a very low background AC $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0003$ where count rate effects are considered negligible. A point source and cold gelatin phantoms of different thicknesses were used to assess the errors due to attenuation and scatter. The maximum pixel values of the point source in gelatin and in air were compared to determine the effect of attenuation, while scatter was evaluated by comparing the sum of all pixel values in gelatin and in air.

Results:

The AC in the uniform background was underestimated in phantoms of all thicknesses, with the exception of the 4-cm-thick phantoms in which the measured AC was within ±7% of the true value $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0004$ . The degree of underestimation in the uniform background increased with the phantom thickness, up to $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0005$ in the 12 cm phantoms. The AC in all lesions was underestimated by more than that measured in the background (22% for the 2:1 lesions in the 4 cm phantom) and this underestimation increased with increasing thickness and lesion-to-background ratio (85% for the 10:1 lesions in the 12 cm phantoms). The error due to count rate effects reduced the measured AC with respect to its true value. This error increased with increasing background AC ( $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0006$ at $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0007$ to $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0008$ at $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0009$ for the 4 cm phantoms) and decreased with increasing phantom thickness ( $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0010$ for the 4-cm-thick phantoms to $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0011$ for the 12-cm-thick phantoms at $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0012$ ). Attenuation was a substantial source of error and reduced the measured AC by $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0013$ in the 4–12 cm phantoms, respectively. Scatter increased the total signal measured in images by a relatively constant amount $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0014$ for all thicknesses.

Conclusions:

Applying corrections for count rate effects, attenuation, and scatter will be essential for the PEM Flex Solo II to be able to produce quantitatively accurate images.

REFERENCES

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, Atlanta, 2010, Vol. 2010.
2L. Tabár, B. Vitak, H. -H. Chen, M. -F. Yen, S. W. Duffy, and R. A. Smith, “Beyond randomized controlled trials: Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality,” Cancer 0008-543X 91(9), 1724–1731 (2001).
3 The Swedish Organized Service Screening Evaluation Group, “Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data,” Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 1055-9965 15(1), 45–51 (2006).
4M. T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, P. L. Porter, D. White, C. A. Finder, S. H. Taplin, and E. White, “Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 0027-8874 92(13), 1081–1087 (2000).
5T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse, “Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations,” Radiology 0033-8419 225(1), 165–175 (2002).
6W. A. Berg et al., “Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer,” JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 0098-7484 299(18), 2151–2163 (2008).
7J. de Bresser, B. de Vos, F. van der Ent, and K. Hulsewe, “Breast MRI in clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer presenting with an axillary metastasis: A systematic review,” Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 0748-7983 36(2), 114–119 (2010).
8S. G. Orel and M. D. Schnall, “MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer,” Radiology 0033-8419 220(1), 13–30 (2001).
9F. Bénard and É. Turcotte, “Imaging in breast cancer: Single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography,” Breast Cancer Res. 7(4), 153–162 (2005). 1465-5411
10M. Liberman, F. Sampalis, D. S. Mulder, and J. S. Sampalis, “Breast cancer diagnosis by scintimammography: A meta-analysis and review of the literature,” Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 0167-6806 80(1), 115–126 (2003).
11M. K. O'Connor, S. W. Phillips, C. B. Hruska, D. J. Rhodes, and D. A. Collins, “Molecular breast imaging: Advantages and limitations of a scintimammographic technique in patients with small breast tumors,” Breast J. 1075-122X 13(1), 3–11 (2007).
12C. Rose, J. Dose, and N. Avril, “Positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of breast cancer,” Nucl. Med. Commun. 0143-3636 23(7), 613–618 (2002).
13S. Carkaci, H. A. Macapinlac, M. Cristofanilli, O. Mawlawi, E. Rohren, A. M. Gonzalez Angulo, S. Dawood, E. Resetkova, H. T. Le-Petross, and W. T. Yang, “Retrospective study of $urn:x-wiley:00942405:media:mp0881:mp0881-math-0094$ PET/CT in the diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer: Preliminary data,” J. Nucl. Med. 0161-5505 50(2), 231–238 (2009).
14J. Schwarz-Dose, M. Untch, R. Tiling, S. Sassen, S. Mahner, S. Kahlert, N. Harbeck, A. Lebeau, W. Brenner, M. Schwaiger, F. Jaenicke, and N. Avril, “Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose,” J. Clin. Oncol. 0732-183X 27(4), 535–541 (2009).
15M. Schegerin, A. N. Tosteson, P. A. Kaufman, K. D. Paulsen, and B. W. Pogue, “Prognostic imaging in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally-advanced breast cancer should be cost-effective,” Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 0167-6806 114(3), 537–547 (2009).
16W. A. Berg, I. N. Weinberg, D. Narayanan, M. E. Lobrano, E. Ross, L. Amodei, L. Tafra, L. P. Adler, J. Uddo, W. Stein III, and E. A. Levine, “High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (‘positron emission mammography’) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer,” Breast J. 1075-122X 12(4), 309–323 (2006).
17S. L. Bowen et al., “Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging,” J. Nucl. Med. 0161-5505 50(9), 1401–1408 (2009).
18R. R. Raylman, S. Majewski, R. Wojcik, A. G. Weisenberger, B. Kross, and V. Popov, “Corrections for the effects of accidental coincidences, Compton scatter, and object size in positron emission mammography (PEM) imaging,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 0018-9499 48(3), 913–923 (2001).
19C. J. Thompson, K. Murthy, I. N. Weinberg, and F. Mako, “Feasibility study for positron emission mammography,” Med. Phys. 0094-2405 21(4), 529–538 (1994).
20I. N. Weinberg, D. Beylin, V. Zavarzin, S. Yarnall, P. Y. Stepanov, E. Anashkin, D. Narayanan, S. Dolinsky, K. Lauckner, and L. P. Adler, “Positron emission mammography: High-resolution biochemical breast imaging,” Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 1533-0346 4(1), 55–60 (2005).
21L. MacDonald, J. Edwards, T. Lewellen, D. Haseley, J. Rogers, and P. Kinahan, “Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II,” J. Nucl. Med. 0161-5505 50(10), 1666–1675 (2009).
22N. K. Doshi, Y. Shao, R. W. Silverman, and S. R. Cherry, “Design and evaluation of an LSO PET detector for breast cancer imaging,” Med. Phys. 0094-2405 27(7), 1535–1543 (2000).
23L. Tafra et al., “Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer,” Am. J. Surg. 0002-9610 190(4), 628–632 (2005).
24L. Weidong, E. Anashkin, and C. G. Matthews, “Performance evaluation of a PEM scanner using the NEMA NU 4—2008 Small Animal PET standards,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 0018-9499 57(1), 94–103 (2008).
25L. Macdonald, J. Edwards, T. Lewellen, J. Rogers, and P. Kinahan, “Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography PEM Flex Solo II,” IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Vol. 11, pp. 4494–4501, 2008.
26K. R. Zasadny and R. L. Wahl, “Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: Variations with body weight and a method for correction,” Radiology 0033-8419 189(3), 847–850 (1993).
27R. L. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge, “From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors,” J. Nucl. Med. 0161-5505 50(1), 122S–150S (2009).
28D. L. Bailey and S. R. Meikle, “A convolution-subtraction scatter correction method for 3D PET,” Phys. Med. Biol. 0031-9155 39(3), 411–424 (1994).
29 Positron Emission Tomography, edited by D. M. Bailey D. W. Townsend, P. E. Valk, and M. N. Maisey (Springer-Verlag, London, 2005).
30C. C. Watson, M. E. Casey, B. Bendriem, J. P. Carney, D. W. Townsend, S. Eberl, S. Meikle, and F. P. Difilippo, “Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans,” J. Nucl. Med. 0161-5505 46(11), 1825–1834 (2005).
31K. Murthy, D. Jolly, M. Aznar, C. J. Thompson, P. Sciascia, A. Loutfi, R. Lisbona, and J. H. Gagnon, “Quantification in positron emission mammography (PEM) with planar detectors: Contrast resolution measurements using a custom breast phantom and novel sperical hot-spots,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 0018-9499 46(6), 2192–2196 (1999).
32R. R. Raylman, S. Majewski, R. Wojcik, A. G. Weisenberger, B. Kross, V. Popov, and H. A. Bishop, “The potential role of positron emission mammography for detection of breast cancer. A phantom study,” Med. Phys. 0094-2405 27(8), 1943–1954 (2000).
33A. Springer and O. R. Mawlawi (private communication).

Citing Literature

Volume38, Issue4

April 2011

Pages 2132-2139