Imaging technology reduces radiation exposure during PET scans in healthy individuals, indicating safer protocols for future studies.
Purpose High-sensitivity, total-body (TB) positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) imaging systems enable substantial reduction of injected radioactivity without compromising image quality. Synthetic CT-like attenuation maps can be generated from PET data via deep learning (DL) to further minimise subject radiation exposure. We explored combining TB-PET with DL-derived attenuation maps to minimise effective dose in healthy subjects undergoing TB-PET/CT imaging with [ 18 F]Fluorodeoxyglucose ([ 18 F]FDG). Methods 47 healthy Caucasians (25 F/22 M, BMI: 24 ± 3 kg/m²) underwent TB-PET/CT imaging. After 6-hour fasting, subjects received low-dose CT (1 mSv) and (109 ± 7) MBq [ 18 F]FDG, followed by a 62-minute dynamic PET acquisition (supine, arms down). PET data from 57 to 62 min were down-sampled to simulate reduced activities (50%, 25%, 10%, 5%). Effective doses (ED) were estimated for each activity level. Synthetic CTs (ED = 0 mSv) were generated from PET raw data (at all activity levels) and used to reconstruct attenuation-corrected PETs, which were compared to the original images. Organ-level segmentation enabled quantification of Standardized Uptake Values normalised to body weight (SUVbw) and coefficients of variation (CV). Results Across the cohort, organ-based SUVbw differences remained < 10% versus reference PET for simulated activities down to 10%. At 25% activity (~ 25 MBq, ED~ 0.45 mSv), PET quantification remained robust, though CV increased in skeletal muscle and fat. At 5% activity, SUVbw deviations exceeded 10% in several organs. Conclusion Total-body [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT enables reliable organ-level quantification (%-differences < 10%) at injected activities as low as ~ 25 MBq. Such low-dose protocols may support the creation of reference datasets of healthy controls while minimising radiation exposure to subjects and staff.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: