Effect of different examination conditions on image quality and quantitative value of amyloid positron emission tomography using 18 F-flutemetamol

Objective The recommended start time for 18 F-flutemetamol amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) examination is 60–120 min after 18 F-flutemetamol injection, while an acquisition time of 10–30 min is generally recommended. We aimed to elucidate the effects of different examination conditions on image quality, diagnostic ability, and quantitative value of amyloid PET using 18 F-flutemetamol. Methods We acquired data on a Discovery PET/computed tomography 710 scanner using Hoffman brain and pillar phantoms with 20 MBq of 18 F for 30 min. The images were reconstructed into 10-, 20-, and 30-min periods. The ordered subset-expectation maximization algorithm was used for image reconstruction, which uses a 2- or 4-mm Gaussian filter and a combination of iteration and subset numbers. The percentage contrast and coefficient of variation (CV; as the image noise) were used as physical evaluation indices for reconstructed images, and images with superior contrast and low image noise were selected for clinical evaluation. The imaging data of 15 symptomatic patients ( n = 7 and n = 8 for positive and negative diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, respectively) were reconstructed under the phantom study conditions. Radiographers visually evaluated and ranked the clinical images based on the overall contrast and image noise, and nuclear medicine specialists diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. We compared the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) obtained with different acquisition conditions. Results The basic study using the phantom revealed high convergence of contrast and image noise in five patterns of acquisition time and filter strengths. Regarding visual evaluation, the use of a 2-mm Gaussian filter caused difficulties in diagnosis because the brain parenchymal accumulation was mottled with high image noise. Differences in image quality and diagnostic ability due to different examination times were not significant. Differences in the SUVR were not significant in patients with a negative Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis; in patients with a positive diagnosis, the SUVR showed significant fluctuation depending on the acquisition conditions. Conclusion The differences in image quality and diagnostic performance due to the differences in 10-min acquisition time were not significant; however, of note, SUVR showed significant fluctuation depending on the acquisition conditions in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.