Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in XXXX with oncologic diseases: Initial experience and comparison with analog PET.

@entity1 @entity5 @entity1054 @entity75
UNASSIGNED: We report our initial clinical experience for image quality and diagnostic performance of a @entity1054 ( @entity1054 , Philips Healthcare) compared with an analog PET with time-of-flight (GeminiTF PET/CT, Philips Healthcare). METHODS: Twenty-one oncologic @entity1 , mean age 58, first underwent clinical FDG PET/CT on the GeminiTF. The scanner table was then withdrawn while the @entity1 remained on the table, and the @entity1054 was inserted between the GeminiTF PET and CT scanner. The @entity1 were scanned for a second time using the same PET field of view with CT from GeminiTF for attenuation correction. Two readers reviewed the two sets of PET/CT images for overall image quality, lesion conspicuity and sharpness. They counted the number of suspicious, FDG avid lesions and provided the TNM staging for the five @entity1 referred for initial staging. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and SUV gradients as a measure of lesion sharpness were obtained. RESULTS: @entity1054 showed better image quality compared with GeminiTF. In side-by-side comparison using a 5-point scale, lesion conspicuity (4.3    0.6), lesion sharpness (4.3    0.6) and diagnostic confidence (3.4    0.7) were better with @entity1054 compared with GeminiTF, P < 0.01. In 52 @entity75 , lesion maximum SUV was 36% higher with @entity1054 than with GeminiTF, lesion-to-blood pool SUV ratio was 59% higher and SUV gradient was 51% higher, with good correlation between the two scanners. Lesions < 1.5 cm showed a greater increase in SUV from GeminiTF to @entity1054 compared to those >=  1.5 cm. @entity1054 showed additional eight suspicious lesions in 5 of 21 @entity1 that were not seen at GeminiTF. In the 15 restaging @entity1 , the true negative rate was 100% and true positive rate was 78% for both scanners. In the five @entity1 for initial staging, @entity1054 lead to upstaging in two @entity1 and showed the same staging in the other three @entity1 compared with GeminiTF. CONCLUSION: @entity1054 provides better image quality, diagnostic confidence and accuracy compared with GeminiTF. It may be most beneficial in detecting small @entity5 lesions and disease staging.
