Impact of Reduced Acquisition Time on Bone Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography Images in Oncology Patients.
CNR
OSEM
RR
SNR
SPECT
Journal
Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH
ISSN: 0353-8109
Titre abrégé: Acta Inform Med
Pays: Bosnia and Herzegovina
ID NLM: 101147064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
05
02
2022
accepted:
03
03
2022
entrez:
8
7
2022
pubmed:
9
7
2022
medline:
9
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of resolution recovery (RR) in bone and myocardial perfusion imaging is becoming increasingly popular in nuclear medicine departments. RR produces reconstructed images that show improved spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio compared with conventional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images. To evaluate the impact of the ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) RR modality on preserving noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for short SPECT acquisition. This prospective study was conducted on 80 patients. Full SPECT acquisition was performed as a standardized protocol, while reduced acquisition was achieved with the Poisson resampling method. Noise, SNR, and CNR were measured for different reconstruction parameters for the same image levels. The impact of surface area and body mass index was also measured for the same reconstruction parameters. The results show significantly higher SNR and CNR for the Evolution for Bone protocol compared to the other two reconstruction protocols for full and reduced SPECT acquisition. With the shortening of the SPECT acquisition, an increase in the value of noise was recorded. SNR and CNR decreased with the reduction in SPECT acquisition. The Evolution for Bone protocol for all three analyzed acquisition protocols had the lowest noise values. The highest SNR and CNR were recorded in the Evolution for Bone protocol for the three acquisition protocols and SPECT acquisition time can be reduced from 20 to 10 min for bone SPECT.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The use of resolution recovery (RR) in bone and myocardial perfusion imaging is becoming increasingly popular in nuclear medicine departments. RR produces reconstructed images that show improved spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio compared with conventional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the impact of the ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) RR modality on preserving noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for short SPECT acquisition.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This prospective study was conducted on 80 patients. Full SPECT acquisition was performed as a standardized protocol, while reduced acquisition was achieved with the Poisson resampling method. Noise, SNR, and CNR were measured for different reconstruction parameters for the same image levels. The impact of surface area and body mass index was also measured for the same reconstruction parameters.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The results show significantly higher SNR and CNR for the Evolution for Bone protocol compared to the other two reconstruction protocols for full and reduced SPECT acquisition. With the shortening of the SPECT acquisition, an increase in the value of noise was recorded. SNR and CNR decreased with the reduction in SPECT acquisition.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The Evolution for Bone protocol for all three analyzed acquisition protocols had the lowest noise values. The highest SNR and CNR were recorded in the Evolution for Bone protocol for the three acquisition protocols and SPECT acquisition time can be reduced from 20 to 10 min for bone SPECT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35800906
doi: 10.5455/aim.2022.30.36-40
pii: AIM-30-36
pmc: PMC9226760
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
36-40Informations de copyright
© 2022 Nusret Salkica, Amela Begic, Sandra Zubovic, Sejla Ceric, Amila Basic, Adnan Sehic, Fuad Julardzija, Enis Tinjak.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Apr;37(4):750-7
pubmed: 19921186
J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Jun;19(3):551-81; quiz 585
pubmed: 22456968
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Dec;55(6):671-9
pubmed: 21285924
Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Nov;34(11):1116-23
pubmed: 24056385
Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Jul;38(7):623-628
pubmed: 28489689
Acad Radiol. 2006 Apr;13(4):496-502
pubmed: 16554230
Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Jun;33(6):663-70
pubmed: 22415635
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13(4):601-9
pubmed: 18218538
Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Mar;34(3):233-9
pubmed: 23353887
J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul;14(4):555-65
pubmed: 17679065
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Feb;37(2):155-61
pubmed: 26513057
Nucl Med Commun. 2010 Dec;31(12):1045-53
pubmed: 20881894
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1723-38
pubmed: 27262701
Nucl Med Commun. 2013 Mar;34(3):240-8
pubmed: 23276830
Lancet. 2017 Dec 16;390(10113):2627-2642
pubmed: 29029897