Literature DB >> 28822095

Validation of a calibration method using the cross-calibration factor and system planar sensitivity in quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography imaging.

Norikazu Matsutomo1, Saki Matsumoto2, Tomoaki Yamamoto3, Eisuke Sato3.   

Abstract

The present study aimed to validate the absolute quantitative accuracy of a calibration method for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using cross-calibration factor (CCF)- and system sensitivity-based calibration methods. The CCF obtained with different reconstruction parameters was evaluated using a cylindrical phantom (diameter 20 cm, height 20 cm). SPECT images were acquired with a positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) phantom. Subsequently, they were reconstructed by using ordered subset expectation maximization with resolution recovery, scatter, and CT-based attenuation correction. All reconstructed SPECT counts were converted to activity concentrations based on the CCF and system planar sensitivity. We placed 12 circular regions of interest, 37 mm in diameter, on the phantom background, and the converted activity concentration and relative measurement error were assessed. The CCF obtained using a cylindrical phantom was affected by the iterative update number and post-smoothing filter function. The activity concentration calibrated using the CCF showed over- and underestimation. However, the activity concentration obtained from the system planar sensitivity was similar to that gained using the phantom. The values obtained using the system planar sensitivity were within 10% of the activity concentrations obtained with the phantom. These findings demonstrated that the calibration method using system planar sensitivity provides accurate quantification within 10% of the true activity concentration. Further clinical examination is required to validate the present results.

Keywords:  Cross-calibration factor; Quantitative SPECT; Radioactivity concentration; SPECT/CT; System sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28822095     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-017-0416-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  22 in total

Review 1.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Quantitative SPECT/CT: SPECT joins PET as a quantitative imaging modality.

Authors:  Dale L Bailey; Kathy P Willowson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  SPECT dual-energy-window Compton correction: scatter multiplier required for quantification.

Authors:  K F Koral; F M Swailem; S Buchbinder; N H Clinthorne; W L Rogers; B M Tsui
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications.

Authors:  Dale L Bailey; Kathy P Willowson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  SUV measurement of normal vertebrae using SPECT/CT with Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate.

Authors:  Tomohiro Kaneta; Matsuyoshi Ogawa; Hiromitsu Daisaki; Shintaro Nawata; Keisuke Yoshida; Tomio Inoue
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-09-22

6.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Clinical value of attenuation correction in stress-only Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging.

Authors:  Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Lynne L Johnson; S James Cullom; James A Case; James R Galt; Ernest V Garcia; Keith Haddock; Kelly L Moutray; Carlos Poston; Eli H Botvinick; Matthews B Fish; William P Follansbee; Sean Hayes; Ami E Iskandrian; John J Mahmarian; William Vandecker
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Postoperative lung function in lung cancer patients: comparative analysis of predictive capability of MRI, CT, and SPECT.

Authors:  Yoshiharu Ohno; Hisanobu Koyama; Munenobu Nogami; Daisuke Takenaka; Sumiaki Matsumoto; Masahiro Yoshimura; Yoshikazu Kotani; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Quantitative (177)Lu SPECT (QSPECT) imaging using a commercially available SPECT/CT system.

Authors:  Jean-Mathieu Beauregard; Michael S Hofman; Jucilene M Pereira; Peter Eu; Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  CT-based quantitative SPECT for the radionuclide ²⁰¹Tl: experimental validation and a standardized uptake value for brain tumour patients.

Authors:  Kathy Willowson; Dale Bailey; Geoff Schembri; Clive Baldock
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.909

View more
  3 in total

1.  Phantom and clinical evaluation of bone SPECT/CT image reconstruction with xSPECT algorithm.

Authors:  Noriaki Miyaji; Kenta Miwa; Ayaka Tokiwa; Hajime Ichikawa; Takashi Terauchi; Mitsuru Koizumi; Masahisa Onoguchi
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.138

2.  Investigation of post-therapeutic image-based thyroid dosimetry using quantitative SPECT/CT, iodine biokinetics, and the MIRD's voxel S values in Graves' disease.

Authors:  Naotoshi Fujita; Yumiko Koshiba; Shinji Abe; Katsuhiko Kato
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2020-01-28

3.  Verification of the effect of acquisition time for SwiftScan on quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography using an anthropomorphic phantom.

Authors:  Takuro Shiiba; Yuya Sekikawa; Shinji Tateoka; Nobutaka Shinohara; Yuuki Inoue; Yasuyoshi Kuroiwa; Takashi Tanaka; Yasushi Kihara; Takuroh Imamura
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2022-07-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.