Literature DB >> 22755726

Proof of concept for low-dose molecular breast imaging with a dual-head CZT gamma camera. Part I. Evaluation in phantoms.

Carrie B Hruska1, Amanda L Weinmann, Michael K O'Connor.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a nuclear medicine technology that uses dual-head cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) gamma cameras to image functional uptake of a radiotracer, Tc-99m sestamibi, in the breast. An important factor in adoption of MBI in the screening setting is reduction of the necessary administered dose of Tc-99m sestamibi from the typically used dose of 740 MBq to approximately 148 MBq, such that MBI's whole-body effective dose is comparable to that of screening mammography. Methods that increase MBI count sensitivity may allow a proportional reduction in the necessary administered dose. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two count sensitivity improvement methods on image quality by evaluating count sensitivity, spatial resolution, and lesion contrast in phantom simulations.
METHODS: Two dual-head CZT-based MBI systems were studied: LumaGem and Discovery NM 750b. Two count sensitivity improvement methods were implemented: registered collimators optimized for dedicated breast imaging and widened energy acceptance window optimized for use with CZT. System sensitivity, spatial resolution, and tumor contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured comparing standard collimation and energy window setting [126-154 keV (+10%, -10%)] with optimal collimation and a wide energy window [110-154 keV (+10%, -21%)].
RESULTS: Compared to the standard collimator designs and energy windows for these two systems, use of registered optimized collimation and wide energy window increased system sensitivity by a factor of 2.8-3.6. Spatial resolution decreased slightly for both systems with new collimation. At 3 cm from the collimator face, LumaGem's spatial resolution was 4.8 and 5.6 mm with standard and optimized collimation; Discovery NM 750b's spatial resolution was 4.4 and 4.6 mm with standard and optimized collimation, respectively. For both systems, at tumor depths of 1 and 3 cm, use of optimized collimation and wide energy window significantly improved CNR compared to standard settings for tumors 8.0 and 9.2 mm in diameter. At the closer depth of 1 cm, optimized collimation and wide energy window also significantly improved CNR for 5.9 mm tumors on Discovery NM 750b.
CONCLUSIONS: Registered optimized collimation and wide energy window yield a substantial gain in count sensitivity and measurable gain in CNR, with some loss in spatial resolution compared to the standard collimator designs and energy windows used on these two systems. At low-count densities calculated to represent doses of 148 MBq, this tradeoff results in adequate count density and lesion contrast for detection of lesions ≥8 mm in the middle of a typical breast (3 cm deep) and lesions ≥6 mm close to the collimator (1 cm deep).
© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22755726      PMCID: PMC3376156          DOI: 10.1118/1.4718665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  15 in total

1.  Wide-beam reconstruction half-time SPECT improves diagnostic certainty and preserves normalcy and accuracy: a quantitative perfusion analysis.

Authors:  Regina S Druz; Lawrence M Phillips; Michelle Chugkowski; Loukas Boutis; Bruce Rutkin; Stanley Katz
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Design of optimal collimation for dedicated molecular breast imaging systems.

Authors:  Amanda L Weinmann; Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor; Hua Li; Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Conor B Clancy; Richard J Vetter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Molecular breast imaging: advantages and limitations of a scintimammographic technique in patients with small breast tumors.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor; Stephen W Phillips; Carrie B Hruska; Deborah J Rhodes; Douglas A Collins
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Calculating confidence intervals for regression and correlation.

Authors:  D G Altman; M J Gardner
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-04-30

Review 7.  Correlation of tumor size and axillary lymph node involvement with prognosis in patients with T1 breast carcinoma.

Authors:  A L Abner; L Collins; G Peiro; A Recht; S Come; L N Shulman; B Silver; A Nixon; J R Harris; S J Schnitt; J L Connolly
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Peggy L Porter; Constance Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Emily White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Molecular breast imaging: use of a dual-head dedicated gamma camera to detect small breast tumors.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Stephen W Phillips; Dana H Whaley; Deborah J Rhodes; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  14 in total

1.  Implementation and evaluation of an expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for gamma emission breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Zongyi Gong; Kelly Klanian; Tushita Patel; Olivia Sullivan; Mark B Williams
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Molecular breast imaging: an emerging modality for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-01-01

4.  Collimator design for a dedicated molecular breast imaging-guided biopsy system: proof-of-concept.

Authors:  Amanda L Weinmann; Carrie B Hruska; Amy L Conners; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Comparison of breast specific gamma imaging and molecular breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection: Evaluation in phantoms.

Authors:  Zongyi Gong; Mark B Williams
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Journal club: molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Katie N Jones; Alicia Y Toledano; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Wei Wei; Hua-Wei Yang; Jian-Lun Liu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Thomas Beyer; Luc Bidaut; John Dickson; Marc Kachelriess; Fabian Kiessling; Rainer Leitgeb; Jingfei Ma; Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar; Benjamin Theek; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 9.  Dedicated Breast Gamma Camera Imaging and Breast PET: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2018-07

10.  Direct-Conversion Molecular Breast Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer: Imaging Features, Extent of Invasive Disease, and Comparison Between Invasive Ductal and Lobular Histology.

Authors:  Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Carrie B Hruska; Jennifer R Geske; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.