Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2025
Hand-held Clinical Photoacoustic Imaging System for Real-time Non-invasive Small Animal Imaging
Published on: October 16, 2017
PET imaging and quantification of small animals using a clinical SiPM-based camera
Cédric Desmonts1,2, Charline Lasnon3,4, Cyril Jaudet5
1Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital of Caen, Avenue de La Côte de Nacre, 14033, Caen Cedex 9, France. desmonts-c@chu-caen.fr.
Background:
Small-animal PET imaging is an important tool in preclinical oncology. This study evaluated the ability of a clinical SiPM-PET camera to image several rats simultaneously and to perform quantification data analysis.
Methods:
Intrinsic spatial resolution was measured using 18F line sources, and image quality was assessed using a NEMA NU 4-2018 phantom. Quantification was evaluated using a fillable micro-hollow sphere phantom containing 4 spheres of different sizes (ranging from 3.95 to 7.86 mm). Recovery coefficients were computed for the maximum (Amax) and the mean (A50) pixel values measured on a 50% isocontour drawn on each sphere. Measurements were performed first with the phantom placed in the centre of the field of view and then in the off-centre position with the presence of three scattering sources to simulate the acquisition of four animals simultaneously. Quantification accuracy was finally validated using four 3D-printed phantoms mimicking rats with four subcutaneous tumours each. All experiments were performed for both 18F and 68Ga radionuclides.
Results:
Radial spatial resolutions measured using the PSF reconstruction algorithm were 1.80 mm and 1.78 mm for centred and off-centred acquisitions, respectively. Spill-overs in air and water and uniformity computed with the NEMA phantom centred in the FOV were 0.05, 0.1 and 5.55% for 18F and 0.08, 0.12 and 2.81% for 68Ga, respectively. Recovery coefficients calculated with the 18F-filled micro-hollow sphere phantom for each sphere varied from 0.51 to 1.43 for Amax and from 0.40 to 1.01 for A50. These values decreased from 0.28 to 0.92 for Amax and from 0.22 to 0.66 for A50 for 68 Ga acquisition. The results were not significantly different when imaging phantoms in the off-centre position with 3 scattering sources. Measurements performed with the four 3D-printed phantoms showed a good correlation between theoretical and measured activity in simulated tumours, with r2 values of 0.99 and 0.97 obtained for 18F and 68Ga, respectively.
Conclusion:
We found that the clinical SiPM-based PET system was close to that obtained with a dedicated small-animal PET device. This study showed the ability of such a system to image four rats simultaneously and to perform quantification analysis for radionuclides commonly used in oncology.
