Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational analysis highlights improved image quality in 59 patients using the BIOGRAPH One PET/MRI system, suggesting better clinical applications.
Objective: We present the first clinical experience with the BIOGRAPH One next-generation PET/MRI system scanner, evaluating its performance for body and brain imaging in patients across multiple tracers. Methods: A total of 59 patients were scanned on the BIOGRAPH One PET/MRI following standard clinical PET/CT (n = 52) or first-generation PET/MRI (Biograph mMR, n = 7). Scans comprised 30 total body (TB), whole body (WB), or regional scans with [¹⁸F]FDG, and 29 brain scans with either [¹⁸F]FDG (n = 5), [¹⁸F]FE-PE2I (n = 10), [¹⁸F]FET (n = 4), or [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTATOC (n = 10). The PET image quality was visually assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very good to 5 = very bad) and compared with clinical scans acquired on either a current-generation digital PET/CT or a first-generation PET/MRI system, including evaluation of diagnostic concordance. PET quantification and image noise was compared in brain and WB/TB [¹⁸F]FDG PET scans. Results: PET image quality was rated as good or very good in 93% of scans with a median [inter-quartile range] score of 1.5 [1.5;2]. In 99% of cases, image quality was judged equal to or better than the clinical reference scan (median score 3 [2.5;3]). Diagnostic concordance was observed in 99% of readings. Imaging metrics revealed the anticipated regional bias in brain imaging, while no significant bias was observed in body imaging. Image noise was comparable to that observed with digital PET/CT and demonstrated superiority over first-generation PET/MRI despite potential degradation related to isotope decay in BIOGRAPH One PET/MRI acquisitions scans performed at the end of the imaging workflow. Conclusions: Within the study limitations related to sequential imaging, the BIOGRAPH One PET/MRI scanner demonstrated improved PET sensitivity and workflow potential over its first-generation predecessor, which may allow for broader clinical and research applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henriksen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: