en Radiation Biology Radiation Biology تحقيق بديع Original Research <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="text-justify:newspaper"><span style="text-kashida-space:50%"><span style="line-height:119%"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Background</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">The positron emission tomography (PET) technology has undergone continuous innovation in recent years. New-technology digital PETs are silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) PET systems with digital readouts, which contribute to improved image resolution. This study aimed to compare the image quality of sub-centimeter lesions of NEMA PET phantom images obtained under identical imaging conditions (identical lesion volumes, identical activity and identical scanning time) using dPET, analog PET-1 and analog PET-2 acquired in the clinic. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Materials and Methods: </span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">For image analysis, a standard NEMA IEC body phantom was used. In the present study, the lesion detection performance of all PETs was evaluated in two categories, sub- and over-centimeter size. The imaging durations of this study were 1, 2, 3, and 5 minutes, while the injection doses were 2.33 and 5.33 kBq/ml for the 1/4 and 1/8 background-to-lesion ratios, respectively. For a quantitative assessment of image quality, a circular ROI with activity concentrations (ACmean) and the mean recovery coefficient were calculated for each lesion via the ACmean. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Results: </span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Our study revealed approximately 15% greater RCmean values for dPET with SiPM technology compared to the analog PET-2 with PMT technology. However, analog PET-1 exhibited a significant lack of performance, especially when compared to analog PET-2 and dPET. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Conclusion: </span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Although dPET, the first generation of dPETs analyzed in the present study, yields relatively better RCmean values than analog PETs, it is not able to entirely eliminate the unfavorable impacts of PVE for sub-centimeter lesions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div> Digital PET, analog PET, lesion detection capability, image quality. 397 405 http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-1342&slc_lang=en&sid=1 M.C. Karaca mervecinoglu@gmail.com 7900319475328460031106 7900319475328460031106 Yes Department of Health Physics, Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Türkiye M. Doyuran 7900319475328460031107 7900319475328460031107 No Department of Health Physics, Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Türkiye T. Çakır 7900319475328460031108 7900319475328460031108 No Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Türkiye S. Karyağar 7900319475328460031109 7900319475328460031109 No Department of Nuclear Medicine, Health Science University, Medical Faculty, Prof Dr Cemil Taşçıoğlu City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye M. Çağlar 7900319475328460031110 7900319475328460031110 No Department of Health Physics, Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Türkiye