Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
Simultaneous PET/MRI Imaging During Mouse Cerebral Hypoxia-ischemia
Published on: September 20, 2015
Performance evaluation of a PET insert for preclinical MRI in stand-alone PET and simultaneous PET-MRI modes
Gaelle Emvalomenos1,2, Sofie Trajanovska3, Binh T T Pham3
1Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. gaelle.emvalomenos@sydney.edu.au.
Background:
This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a preclinical PET insert in three configurations: as a stand-alone unit outside the MRI bore, inside the bore of a cryogen-free 3T MRI and, finally, while performing simultaneous PET/MRI studies.
Methods:
The PET insert consists of two rings of six detectors, each detector comprising 8 × 12 SiPMs reading out dual offset layers of pixelated LYSO crystals with a 1.4-mm pitch. The inner diameter is 60 mm, transaxial field of view (FoV) 40 mm and axial FoV 98 mm. Evaluation was based on NEMA NU 4-2008 guidelines with appropriate modifications. Spatial resolution and sensitivity were measured inside and outside the MR bore. Image quality, count rate and quantitative performance were measured in all three configurations. The effect of temperature stability on PET sensitivity during fast spin echo sequences was also evaluated. B0 field homogeneity and T1 and T2 relaxation times were measured using a water-filled phantom, with and without simultaneous PET operation. Finally, PET and MRI scans of a mouse injected with 10 MBq [18F]NaF and a mouse injected with 16 MBq [18F]FDG were performed in sequential and simultaneous modes.
Results:
Peak absolute sensitivity was 10.15% with an energy window of 250-750 keV. Absolute sensitivity values outside and inside the MR bore with MR idle agreed to within 0.1%. Outside the MR bore, spatial resolution was 1.21/1.59 mm FWHM (radial/tangential) 5 mm from the centre of the FoV which compared well with 1.19/1.26 mm FWHM inside the MR bore. There were no substantial differences between all three scan configurations in terms of peak NEC rate (175 kcps at 17 MBq), scatter or random fractions. Uniformity and recovery coefficients were also consistent between scanning modes. B0 field homogeneity and T1 and T2 relaxation times were unaltered by the presence of the PET insert. No significant differences were observed between sequential and simultaneous scans of the animals.
Conclusions:
We conclude that the performance of the PET insert and MRI system is not significantly affected by the scanning mode.
