Takanaga Niimi1, Mamoru Nanasato2, Mitsuo Sugimoto1, Hisatoshi Maeda3. 1. Department of Radiological Technology, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital, Takanaga Niimi, 2-9 Myouken-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8650 Japan. 2. Cardiovascular Center, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital, 2-9 Myouken-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8650 Japan. 3. Department of Radiological Technology, Nagoya University School of Health Sciences, 1-1-20 Daiko-minami, Higashi-ku, Nagoya, 461-8673 Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The differences in performance between the cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera or collimation systems and conventional Anger single-photon emission computed tomography (A-SPECT) remain insufficient from the viewpoint of the user. We evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Israel) system to provide more information to the cardiologist or radiological technologist about its use in the clinical field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT system in terms of energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and collimator resolution in comparison with that of A-SPECT (Bright-View, Philips, Japan). Energy resolution and detector sensitivity were measured for Tc-99m, I-123, and Tl-201. The SPECT images produced by both systems were evaluated visually using the anthropomorphic torso phantom. RESULTS: The energy resolution of D-SPECT with Tc-99m and I-123 was approximately two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The detector sensitivity of D-SPECT was higher than that of A-SPECT (Tc-99m: 4.2 times, I-123: 2.2 times, and Tl-201: 5.9 times). The mean spatial resolution of D-SPECT was two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The MTF of D-SPECT was superior to that of the A-SPECT system for all frequencies. The collimator resolution of D-SPECT was lower than that of A-SPECT; however, the D-SPECT images clearly indicated better spatial resolution than the A-SPECT images. CONCLUSION: The energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, and MTF of D-SPECT were superior to those of A-SPECT. Although the collimator resolution was lower than that of A-SPECT, the D-SPECT images were clearly of better quality.
PURPOSE: The differences in performance between the cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera or collimation systems and conventional Anger single-photon emission computed tomography (A-SPECT) remain insufficient from the viewpoint of the user. We evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Israel) system to provide more information to the cardiologist or radiological technologist about its use in the clinical field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT system in terms of energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and collimator resolution in comparison with that of A-SPECT (Bright-View, Philips, Japan). Energy resolution and detector sensitivity were measured for Tc-99m, I-123, and Tl-201. The SPECT images produced by both systems were evaluated visually using the anthropomorphic torso phantom. RESULTS: The energy resolution of D-SPECT with Tc-99m and I-123 was approximately two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The detector sensitivity of D-SPECT was higher than that of A-SPECT (Tc-99m: 4.2 times, I-123: 2.2 times, and Tl-201: 5.9 times). The mean spatial resolution of D-SPECT was two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The MTF of D-SPECT was superior to that of the A-SPECT system for all frequencies. The collimator resolution of D-SPECT was lower than that of A-SPECT; however, the D-SPECT images clearly indicated better spatial resolution than the A-SPECT images. CONCLUSION: The energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, and MTF of D-SPECT were superior to those of A-SPECT. Although the collimator resolution was lower than that of A-SPECT, the D-SPECT images were clearly of better quality.
Authors: Sanjiv S Gambhir; Daniel S Berman; Jack Ziffer; Michael Nagler; Martin Sandler; Jim Patton; Brian Hutton; Tali Sharir; Shlomo Ben Haim; Simona Ben Haim Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S F Hain; D Van Gramberg; J B Bomanji; I Kayani; A M Groves; S Ben-Haim Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Alexandros P Samartzis; George P Fountos; Ioannis S Kandarakis; Evangelia P Kounadi; Emmanuel N Zoros; Evangelia Skoura; Ioannis E Datseris; George H Nikiforides Journal: Hell J Nucl Med Date: 2014 May-Aug Impact factor: 1.102
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Xingping Kang; Arik Wolak; Faith Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Johanne Neill; Elizabeth M Prvulovich; Matthews B Fish; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka; Tali Sharir; William H Martin; Marcelo F DiCarli; Jack A Ziffer; Jamshed B Bomanji; Dalia Shiti; Simona Ben-Haim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anzhelika Vorobyeva; Alexey Schulga; Elena Konovalova; Rezan Güler; John Löfblom; Mattias Sandström; Javad Garousi; Vladimir Chernov; Olga Bragina; Anna Orlova; Vladimir Tolmachev; Sergey M Deyev Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 4.379