Head‐to‐Head comparison between Philips Gemini TF64 and Siemens Biograph Vision 600 for brain amyloid Centiloid quantitation

Abstract Background The Centiloid (CL) scale calibrates the beta‐amyloid (Aβ) deposition from different PET tracers to a standardised 0‐100 CL unit scale. As imaging sites update their PET cameras, most are switching to digital detector systems with superior resolution and sensitivity that may affect quantitation. This has significant implications for dementia clinical trials. In this study, we examine the impact on CL quantification between Philips Gemini TF64 and Siemens Biograph Vision 600. Method Seven subjects (76.4±2.2 yo) were imaged with 18 F‐NAV4694 on both Gemini TF64 and Biograph Vision consecutively with an average scan interval of 25.1±11.2 weeks. The injected doses were 200MBq and 100MBq, respectively. On the Gemini TF64, the PET images were reconstructed by LOR‐RAMLA algorithm with smoothing parameter setup as ‘SHARP’. On Biograph Vision, the PET images were reconstructed by OSEM‐3D (8 iterations and 5 subsets, TOF enabled) with 3mm post Gaussian smoothing. A T1 MRI image was acquired for each subject. As per the standard Centiloid method the whole cerebellum was used as the reference in SUVR images, and all images were processed using CapAIBL to calculate the CL using both MR‐based and MR‐Less spatial normalisation. Result Figure 1 shows the CL images of a subject scanned on Gemini TF64 and Biograph Vision within sixteen weeks. The Biograph Vision images have higher contrast and higher spatial resolution despite using half of the dose. Figure 2 shows the linear regression plot of the scanner comparison. Biograph Vision CL are progressively higher than those obtained from the Gemini TF64 as the CL value rises (Table 1). There were no significant differences between the MR‐based and MR‐less results. Conclusion Biograph Vision yields higher SUVR and therefore CL values compared to Gemini TF64 in a head‐to‐head comparison. These results show that the selection of PET camera has a significant impact on CL quantification, which needs to be considered when merging cohorts from different studies or changing cameras during longitudinal studies or trials. These initial results indicate that the CL difference could be corrected by a linear transform.