UNLABELLED: Differences in the performance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras or collimation systems that have recently been commercialized for myocardial SPECT remain unclear. In the present study, the performance of 3 of these systems was compared by a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human SPECT images. METHODS: We evaluated the Discovery NM 530c and DSPECT CZT cameras, as well as the Symbia Anger camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ x SPECT) or parallel-hole (conventional SPECT) collimator. Physical performance was compared on reconstructed SPECT images from a phantom and from comparable groups of healthy subjects. RESULTS: Classifications were as follows, in order of performance. For count sensitivity on cardiac phantom images (counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1)), DSPECT had a sensitivity of 850; Discovery NM 530c, 460; IQ x SPECT, 390; and conventional SPECT, 130. This classification was similar to that of myocardial counts normalized to injected activities from human images (respective mean values, in counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1): 11.4 ± 2.6, 5.6 ± 1.4, 2.7 ± 0.7, and 0.6 ± 0.1). For central spatial resolution: Discovery NM 530c was 6.7 mm; DSPECT, 8.6 mm; IQ x SPECT, 15.0 mm; and conventional SPECT, 15.3 mm, also in accordance with the analysis of the sharpness of myocardial contours on human images (in cm(-1): 1.02 ± 0.17, 0.92 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.12, and 0.65 ± 0.06, respectively). For contrast-to-noise ratio on the phantom: Discovery NM 530c had a ratio of 4.6; DSPECT, 4.1; IQ x SPECT, 3.9; and conventional SPECT, 3.5, similar to ratios documented on human images (5.2 ± 1.0, 4.5 ± 0.5, 3.9 ± 0.6, and 3.4 ± 0.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: The performance of CZT cameras is dramatically higher than that of Anger cameras, even for human SPECT images. However, CZT cameras differ in that spatial resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio are better with the Discovery NM 530c, whereas count sensitivity is markedly higher with the DSPECT.
UNLABELLED: Differences in the performance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras or collimation systems that have recently been commercialized for myocardial SPECT remain unclear. In the present study, the performance of 3 of these systems was compared by a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human SPECT images. METHODS: We evaluated the Discovery NM 530c and DSPECT CZT cameras, as well as the Symbia Anger camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ x SPECT) or parallel-hole (conventional SPECT) collimator. Physical performance was compared on reconstructed SPECT images from a phantom and from comparable groups of healthy subjects. RESULTS: Classifications were as follows, in order of performance. For count sensitivity on cardiac phantom images (counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1)), DSPECT had a sensitivity of 850; Discovery NM 530c, 460; IQ x SPECT, 390; and conventional SPECT, 130. This classification was similar to that of myocardial counts normalized to injected activities from human images (respective mean values, in counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1): 11.4 ± 2.6, 5.6 ± 1.4, 2.7 ± 0.7, and 0.6 ± 0.1). For central spatial resolution: Discovery NM 530c was 6.7 mm; DSPECT, 8.6 mm; IQ x SPECT, 15.0 mm; and conventional SPECT, 15.3 mm, also in accordance with the analysis of the sharpness of myocardial contours on human images (in cm(-1): 1.02 ± 0.17, 0.92 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.12, and 0.65 ± 0.06, respectively). For contrast-to-noise ratio on the phantom: Discovery NM 530c had a ratio of 4.6; DSPECT, 4.1; IQ x SPECT, 3.9; and conventional SPECT, 3.5, similar to ratios documented on human images (5.2 ± 1.0, 4.5 ± 0.5, 3.9 ± 0.6, and 3.4 ± 0.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: The performance of CZT cameras is dramatically higher than that of Anger cameras, even for human SPECT images. However, CZT cameras differ in that spatial resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio are better with the Discovery NM 530c, whereas count sensitivity is markedly higher with the DSPECT.
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Ron Blankstein; Howard Andrews; Mathews Fish; Richard Padgett; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Mehreen Qureshi; Harivony Rakotoarivelo; Piotr Slomka; Ryo Nakazato; Sabahat Bokhari; Marcello Di Carli; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 10.057