The role of dynamic, static, and delayed total-body PET imaging in the detection and differential diagnosis of oncological lesions

Abstract

ObjectivesCommercialized total-body PET scanners can provide high-quality images due to its ultra-high sensitivity. We compared the dynamic, regular static, and delayed 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) scans to detect lesions in oncologic patients on a total-body PET/CT scanner.Materials & methodsIn all, 45 patients were scanned continuously for the first 60 min, followed by a delayed acquisition. FDG metabolic rate was calculated from dynamic data using full compartmental modeling, whereas regular static and delayed SUV images were obtained approximately 60- and 145-min post-injection, respectively. The retention index was computed from static and delayed measures for all lesions. Pearson’s correlation and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare parameters.ResultsThe number of lesions was largely identical between the three protocols, except MRFDG and delayed images on total-body PET only detected 4 and 2 more lesions, respectively (85 total). FDG metabolic rate (MRFDG) image-derived contrast-to-noise ratio and target-to-background ratio were significantly higher than those from static standardized uptake value (SUV) images (P < 0.01), but this is not the case for the delayed images (P > 0.05). Dynamic protocol did not significantly differentiate between benign and malignant lesions just like regular SUV, delayed SUV, and retention index.ConclusionThe potential quantitative advantages of dynamic imaging may not improve lesion detection and differential diagnosis significantly on a total-body PET/CT scanner. The same conclusion applied to delayed imaging. This suggested the added benefits of complex imaging protocols must be weighed against the complex implementation in the future.Clinical relevanceTotal-body PET/CT was known to significantly improve the PET image quality due to its ultra-high sensitivity. However, whether the dynamic and delay imaging on total-body scanner could show additional clinical benefits is largely unknown. Head-to-head comparison between two protocols is relevant to oncological management.