BACKGROUND: Although attenuation correction (AC) has been successfully applied to large field of view (LFOV) cameras, applicability to small field of view (SFOV) cameras is a concern due to truncation. This study compared perfusion images between a LFOV and SFOV camera with truncation compensation, using the same AC solution. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-eight clinically referred patients underwent rest-stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using both a SFOV and LFOV camera in a randomized sequence. Blinded images were interpreted by a consensus of three experienced readers. The percentage of normal images for SFOV and LFOV was significantly higher with than without AC (72% vs 44% and 72% vs 49%, both P < .001). Interpretive agreement between cameras was better with than without AC (kappa = 0.736 to 0.847 vs 0.545 to 0.774). Correlation for the summed stress score was higher with than without AC (r (2) = 0.892 vs 0.851, both P < 0.001) while Bland Altman analysis demonstrated narrower limits with than without AC (4.0 to -4.3 vs 5.9 to -5.6). CONCLUSION: Attenuation correction using truncation compensation with a SFOV camera yields similar results to a LFOV camera. The higher interpretive agreement between cameras after attenuation correction suggests that such images are preferable to non-attenuation-corrected images.
BACKGROUND: Although attenuation correction (AC) has been successfully applied to large field of view (LFOV) cameras, applicability to small field of view (SFOV) cameras is a concern due to truncation. This study compared perfusion images between a LFOV and SFOV camera with truncation compensation, using the same AC solution. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-eight clinically referred patients underwent rest-stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using both a SFOV and LFOV camera in a randomized sequence. Blinded images were interpreted by a consensus of three experienced readers. The percentage of normal images for SFOV and LFOV was significantly higher with than without AC (72% vs 44% and 72% vs 49%, both P < .001). Interpretive agreement between cameras was better with than without AC (kappa = 0.736 to 0.847 vs 0.545 to 0.774). Correlation for the summed stress score was higher with than without AC (r (2) = 0.892 vs 0.851, both P < 0.001) while Bland Altman analysis demonstrated narrower limits with than without AC (4.0 to -4.3 vs 5.9 to -5.6). CONCLUSION: Attenuation correction using truncation compensation with a SFOV camera yields similar results to a LFOV camera. The higher interpretive agreement between cameras after attenuation correction suggests that such images are preferable to non-attenuation-corrected images.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert C Hendel; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; E Gordon DePuey; Ernest V Garcia; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ji Chen; James R Galt; James A Case; Jinghan Ye; S James Cullom; Mary K Durbin; Ling Shao; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: S R Underwood; C Anagnostopoulos; M Cerqueira; P J Ell; E J Flint; M Harbinson; A D Kelion; A Al-Mohammad; E M Prvulovich; L J Shaw; A C Tweddel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Harshal R Patil; Timothy M Bateman; A Iain McGhie; Eric V Burgett; Staci A Courter; James A Case; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Carmelo V Venero; Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; A Iain McGhie; Alan W Ahlberg; Deborah Katten; Staci A Courter; Robert J Golub; James A Case; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; Staci A Courter; Robert A Golub; James A Case; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.952