This preprint evaluated how defective detector blocks (DDBs) affect quantitative accuracy on a long axial field-of-view (LAFOV PET)/CT system comprising 1,216 detector blocks. The investigation focused on systematic quantification bias introduced by removing detector data from list-mode acquisitions to simulate various DDB configurations. The primary outcome measures were lesion and phantom biases expressed as SUV metrics under different reconstruction and acquisition conditions.
The authors combined analysis of a clinical patient dataset and Monte Carlo–based phantom simulations. The clinical component included 152 segmented patient lesions. Defective detector block scenarios were simulated by selectively removing coincidence events from list-mode data to create different numbers and spatial distributions of DDBs, including sparse (dispersed) and clustered (adjacent) patterns. Quantification bias was assessed across phantom volumes-of-interest and the segmented patient lesions using SUVmean, SUVpeak and SUVmax. Reconstruction parameters and acquisition durations (notably 5-minute and 10-minute acquisitions) were varied to determine impacts on tolerance to DDBs.
When DDBs were sparsely distributed across the detector ring, biases were described as limited and spatially diffuse. Under standard reconstruction settings and a 5-minute acquisition, SUV accuracy remained within ±5% for up to eight sparse DDBs. These findings indicate that dispersed single-block failures produce modest, nonlocal effects on reconstructed activity concentrations under routine clinical acquisition and reconstruction conditions.
In contrast to sparse defects, clustered DDBs produced pronounced localized biases. The tolerance to adjacent defective blocks was considerably lower: the study identified a limit of four adjacent DDBs before substantial localized quantification errors occurred. Clustered defects therefore pose a higher risk for focal quantification errors than the same number of dispersed defects.
Reconstruction choices and acquisition duration substantially altered the system’s tolerance to DDBs. Using larger voxel sizes and applying image filtering, together with extending the acquisition to 10 minutes, increased tolerance to a larger number of sparse DDBs—reported up to 32 in the simulated scenarios. These adjustments reduced the magnitude of spatially diffuse biases introduced by missing detector data, suggesting that reconstruction smoothing and higher counts can partially mitigate the quantitative impact of multiple defective blocks.
The three SUV metrics exhibited different sensitivities to DDB-induced effects. SUVmax showed the highest sensitivity and therefore the largest changes in the presence of defective blocks. SUVmean and SUVpeak were less sensitive but still affected depending on defect pattern and acquisition/reconstruction conditions. This hierarchy implies metric selection influences the perceived robustness of quantification when detector defects are present.
The study found increased biases under low-count conditions, indicating that tolerance to defective blocks is reduced for low-dose or short-duration PET protocols. Thus, applications or protocols that intentionally reduce injected dose or acquisition time may be more vulnerable to DDB-related quantification errors, particularly when using SUVmax as the outcome metric.
Based on their findings, the authors propose that current quality control (QC) criteria should be re-evaluated for LAFOV PET systems. Quantification performance was determined primarily by the spatial distribution of defective blocks and secondarily by their number. QC thresholds that incorporate defect configuration (sparse versus clustered), reconstruction settings, and acquisition conditions could allow informed decisions to maintain quantitative reliability while potentially extending acceptable system uptime. The authors emphasize these conclusions derive from simulations and a clinical lesion dataset; the preprint has not undergone peer review.
The authors state that the datasets used in the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Fabian P. Schmidt, Ronald Boellaard, and Christian la Fougère disclosed receipt of a research grant from Siemens Healthineers. As noted in the source, the report is a preprint and should not be used to guide clinical practice without further validation.