PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative accuracy of 3D PET acquisitions for myocardial FDG studies. METHODS: Phantom studies were performed with both a homogeneous and an inhomogeneous phantom. Activity profiles were generated along the phantoms using 2D and several 3D reconstructions, varying the 3D scaling value to adjust the scatter correction algorithm. Furthermore, ten patients underwent a dynamic myocardial FDG PET scan, using an interleaved protocol consisting of frames with alternating 2D and 3D acquisition. For each myocardial study, 13 volumes of interest were defined, representing 13 myocardial segments. First, the optimal scaling value for the scatter correction algorithm was determined using data from the phantom and four patient studies. This scaling value was then applied to all ten patients. 2D and 3D acquisitions were compared for both static (i.e. activity concentrations in the last 2D and 3D frames) and dynamic imaging (calculation of the metabolic rate of glucose). RESULTS: For both phantom and patient studies, suboptimal results were obtained when the default scaling value for the scatter correction algorithm was used. After adjusting the scaling value, for all ten myocardial FDG studies, a very good correlation (r2=0.99) was obtained between 2D and 3D data. With the present protocol no significant differences were observed in qualitative interpretation. CONCLUSION: The 3D FDG acquisition mode is accurate and has clear advantages over the 2D mode for myocardial FDG studies. A prerequisite is, however, optimisation of the 3D scatter correction algorithm.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative accuracy of 3D PET acquisitions for myocardial FDG studies. METHODS: Phantom studies were performed with both a homogeneous and an inhomogeneous phantom. Activity profiles were generated along the phantoms using 2D and several 3D reconstructions, varying the 3D scaling value to adjust the scatter correction algorithm. Furthermore, ten patients underwent a dynamic myocardial FDG PET scan, using an interleaved protocol consisting of frames with alternating 2D and 3D acquisition. For each myocardial study, 13 volumes of interest were defined, representing 13 myocardial segments. First, the optimal scaling value for the scatter correction algorithm was determined using data from the phantom and four patient studies. This scaling value was then applied to all ten patients. 2D and 3D acquisitions were compared for both static (i.e. activity concentrations in the last 2D and 3D frames) and dynamic imaging (calculation of the metabolic rate of glucose). RESULTS: For both phantom and patient studies, suboptimal results were obtained when the default scaling value for the scatter correction algorithm was used. After adjusting the scaling value, for all ten myocardial FDG studies, a very good correlation (r2=0.99) was obtained between 2D and 3D data. With the present protocol no significant differences were observed in qualitative interpretation. CONCLUSION: The 3D FDG acquisition mode is accurate and has clear advantages over the 2D mode for myocardial FDG studies. A prerequisite is, however, optimisation of the 3D scatter correction algorithm.
Authors: Klaus P Schäfers; Terence J Spinks; Paolo G Camici; Peter M Bloomfield; Christopher G Rhodes; Marilyn P Law; Christopher S R Baker; Ornella Rimoldi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anne M J Paans; Sabine M M Boerdijk; Antoon T M Willemsen; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-06-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Claudia Brogsitter; Thomas Grüning; Reiner Weise; Peter Wielepp; Oliver Lindner; Reiner Körfer; Wolfgang Burchert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Magnus Dahlbom; Martin A Auerbach; Christiaan Schiepers; Barbara J Fueger; Wolfgang A Weber; Daniel H S Silverman; Osman Ratib; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Tillisch; R Brunken; R Marshall; M Schwaiger; M Mandelkern; M Phelps; H Schelbert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1986-04-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Schwaiger; R Brunken; M Grover-McKay; J Krivokapich; J Child; J H Tillisch; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1986-10 Impact factor: 24.094