Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Journal article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- SPECT (2) (remove)
Institute
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (1)
Background
Small-animal single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) systems with multi-pinhole collimation and large stationary detectors have advantages compared to systems with moving small detectors. These systems benefit from less labour-intensive maintenance and quality control as fewer prone parts are moving, higher accuracy for focused scans and maintaining high resolution with increased sensitivity due to focused pinholes on the field of view. This study aims to investigate the performance of a novel ultra-high-resolution scanner with two-detector configuration (U-SPECT5-E) and to compare its image quality to a conventional micro-SPECT system with three stationary detectors (U-SPECT\(^+\)).
Methods
The new U-SPECT5-E with two stationary detectors was used for acquiring data with \(^{99m}\)Tc-filled point source, hot-rod and uniformity phantoms to analyse sensitivity, spatial resolution, uniformity and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Three dedicated multi-pinhole mouse collimators with 75 pinholes each and 0.25-, 0.60- and 1.00-mm pinholes for extra ultra-high resolution (XUHR-M), general-purpose (GP-M) and ultra-high sensitivity (UHS-M) imaging were examined. For CNR analysis, four different activity ranges representing low- and high-count settings were investigated for all three collimators. The experiments for the performance assessment were repeated with the same GP-M collimator in the three-detector U-SPECT\(^+\) for comparison.
Results
Peak sensitivity was 237 cps/MBq (XUHR-M), 847 cps/MBq (GP-M), 2054 cps/MBq (UHS-M) for U-SPECT5-E and 1710 cps/MBq (GP-M) for U-SPECT\(^+\). In the visually analysed sections of the reconstructed mini Derenzo phantoms, rods as small as 0.35 mm (XUHR-M), 0.50 mm (GP-M) for the two-detector as well as the three-detector SPECT and 0.75 mm (UHS-M) were resolved. Uniformity for maximum resolution recorded 40.7% (XUHR-M), 29.1% (GP-M, U-SPECT5-E), 16.3% (GP-M, U-SPECT\(^+\)) and 23.0% (UHS-M), respectively. UHS-M reached highest CNR values for low-count images; for rods smaller than 0.45 mm, acceptable CNR was only achieved by XUHR-M. GP-M was superior for imaging rods sized from 0.60 to 1.50 mm for intermediate activity concentrations. U-SPECT5-E and U-SPECT+ both provided comparable CNR.
Conclusions
While uniformity and sensitivity are negatively affected by the absence of a third detector, the investigated U-SPECT5-E system with two stationary detectors delivers excellent spatial resolution and CNR comparable to the performance of an established three-detector-setup.
PURPOSE:
We aimed to (a) elucidate the concordance of visual assessment of an initial I-ioflupane scan by a human interpreter with comparison to results using a fully automatic semiquantitative method and (b) to assess the accuracy compared to follow-up (f/u) diagnosis established by movement disorder specialists.
METHODS:
An initial I-ioflupane scan was performed in 382 patients with clinically uncertain Parkinsonian syndrome. An experienced reader performed a visual evaluation of all scans independently. The findings of the visual read were compared with semiquantitative evaluation. In addition, available f/u clinical diagnosis (serving as a reference standard) was compared with results of the human read and the software.
RESULTS:
When comparing the semiquantitative method with the visual assessment, discordance could be found in 25 (6.5%) of 382 of the cases for the experienced reader (ĸ = 0.868). The human observer indicated region of interest misalignment as the main reason for discordance. With neurology f/u serving as reference, the results of the reader revealed a slightly higher accuracy rate (87.7%, ĸ = 0.75) compared to semiquantification (86.2%, ĸ = 0.719, P < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the visual read versus software-based assessment was found.
CONCLUSIONS:
In comparison with a fully automatic semiquantitative method in I-ioflupane interpretation, human assessment obtained an almost perfect agreement rate. However, compared to clinical established diagnosis serving as a reference, visual read seemed to be slightly more accurate as a solely software-based quantitative assessment.