OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and lesion detection capability between a digital and an analog PET/CT system in oncological patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred oncological patients (62 men, 38 women; mean age of 65 ± 12 years) were prospectively included from January-June 2018. All patients, who accepted to be scanned by two systems, consecutively underwent a single day, dual imaging protocol (digital and analog PET/CT). Three nuclear medicine physicians evaluated image quality using a 4-point scale (-1, poor; 0, fair; 1, good; 2, excellent) and detection capability by counting the number of lesions with increased radiotracer uptake. Differences were considered significant for a p value <0.05. RESULTS: Improved image quality in the digital over the analog system was observed in 54% of the patients (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 44.2-63.5). The percentage of interrater concordance in lesion detection capability between the digital and analog systems was 97%, with an interrater measure agreement of κ = 0.901 (p < 0.0001). Although there was no significant difference in the total number of lesions detected by the two systems (digital: 5.03 ± 10.6 vs. analog: 4.53 ± 10.29; p = 0.7), the digital system detected more lesions in 22 of 83 of PET+ patients (26.5%) (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 17.9-36.7). In these 22 patients, all lesions detected by the digital PET/CT (and not by the analog PET/CT) were < 10 mm. CONCLUSION: Digital PET/CT offers improved image quality and lesion detection capability over the analog PET/CT in oncological patients, and even better for sub-centimeter lesions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and lesion detection capability between a digital and an analog PET/CT system in oncological patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred oncological patients (62 men, 38 women; mean age of 65 ± 12 years) were prospectively included from January-June 2018. All patients, who accepted to be scanned by two systems, consecutively underwent a single day, dual imaging protocol (digital and analog PET/CT). Three nuclear medicine physicians evaluated image quality using a 4-point scale (-1, poor; 0, fair; 1, good; 2, excellent) and detection capability by counting the number of lesions with increased radiotracer uptake. Differences were considered significant for a p value <0.05. RESULTS: Improved image quality in the digital over the analog system was observed in 54% of the patients (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 44.2-63.5). The percentage of interrater concordance in lesion detection capability between the digital and analog systems was 97%, with an interrater measure agreement of κ = 0.901 (p < 0.0001). Although there was no significant difference in the total number of lesions detected by the two systems (digital: 5.03 ± 10.6 vs. analog: 4.53 ± 10.29; p = 0.7), the digital system detected more lesions in 22 of 83 of PET+ patients (26.5%) (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 17.9-36.7). In these 22 patients, all lesions detected by the digital PET/CT (and not by the analog PET/CT) were < 10 mm. CONCLUSION: Digital PET/CT offers improved image quality and lesion detection capability over the analog PET/CT in oncological patients, and even better for sub-centimeter lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Analog PET/CT; Digital PET/CT; Image quality; Lesion detection capability
Authors: Suleman Surti; Austin Kuhn; Matthew E Werner; Amy E Perkins; Jeffrey Kolthammer; Joel S Karp Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nghi C Nguyen; Jose L Vercher-Conejero; Abdus Sattar; Michael A Miller; Piotr J Maniawski; David W Jordan; Raymond F Muzic; Kuan-Hao Su; James K O'Donnell; Peter F Faulhaber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ivo Rausch; Jacobo Cal-González; David Dapra; Hans Jürgen Gallowitsch; Peter Lind; Thomas Beyer; Gregory Minear Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-10-26
Authors: Diego Alfonso López-Mora; Marina Sizova; Montserrat Estorch; Albert Flotats; Valle Camacho; Alejandro Fernández; Safae Abouzian; Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo; José Ignacio Pérez Garcia; Ana Isabel Chico Ballesteros; Joan Duch; Anna Domènech; Antonio Moral Duarte; Ignasi Carrió Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paul Lecoq; Christian Morel; John O Prior; Dimitris Visvikis; Stefan Gundacker; Etiennette Auffray; Peter Križan; Rosana Martinez Turtos; Dominique Thers; Edoardo Charbon; Joao Varela; Christophe de La Taille; Angelo Rivetti; Dominique Breton; Jean-François Pratte; Johan Nuyts; Suleman Surti; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Paul Marsden; Katia Parodi; Jose Maria Benlloch; Mathieu Benoit Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Song Xue; Rui Guo; Karl Peter Bohn; Jared Matzke; Marco Viscione; Ian Alberts; Hongping Meng; Chenwei Sun; Miao Zhang; Min Zhang; Raphael Sznitman; Georges El Fakhri; Axel Rominger; Biao Li; Kuangyu Shi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 10.057