Suppr超能文献

不同供应商的数字PET/CT与标准PET/CT的图像质量和半定量测量比较。

Comparison of Image Quality and Semi-quantitative Measurements with Digital PET/CT and Standard PET/CT from Different Vendors.

作者信息

Kim Sung Hoon, Song Bong-Il, Kim Hae Won, Won Kyoung Sook

机构信息

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Keimyung University Daegu Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, South Korea.

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Keimyung University School of Medicine, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu, 42601 Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Oct;54(5):233-240. doi: 10.1007/s13139-020-00661-8. Epub 2020 Aug 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the concordance and equivalence of results between the newly acquired digital PET/CT(dPET) and the standard PET/CT (sPET) to investigate possible differences in visual and semi-quantitative analyses.

METHODS

A total of 30 participants were enrolled and underwent a single F-FDG injection followed by dual PET/CT scans, by a dPET scan, and immediately after by the sPET scan or vice versa. Two readers reviewed overall image quality using a 5-point scale and counted the number of suggestive F-FDG avid lesions. The SUV values were measured in the background organs and in hypermetabolic target lesions. Additionally, we objectively evaluated image quality using the liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

RESULTS

The dPET identified 4 additional F-FDG avid lesions in 3 of 30 participants with improved visual image quality. The standard deviations of SUV of the background organs were significantly lower with Digital than with sPET, and dPET could acquire images with better SNR (11.13 ± 2.01 vs. 8.71 ± 1.32,  < 0.001). The reliability of SUV values between scanners showed excellent agreement. Bland-Altman plot analysis of 81 lesions showed an acceptable agreement between scanners for most of the SUVmax and SUVpeak values. No relationship between the SUV values and time delays of dual PET/CT acquisition was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The dPET provides improved image quality and lesion detectability than the sPET. The semi-quantitative values of the two PET/CT systems of different vendors are comparable. This pilot study will be an important basis for possible interchangeable use of either system in clinical practice.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估新购置的数字正电子发射断层显像/计算机断层扫描(dPET)与标准正电子发射断层显像/计算机断层扫描(sPET)结果的一致性和等效性,以研究视觉和半定量分析中可能存在的差异。

方法

共纳入30名参与者,单次注射F-FDG后进行两次正电子发射断层显像/计算机断层扫描,先进行dPET扫描,随后立即进行sPET扫描,或反之。两名阅片者使用5分制评估整体图像质量,并计数可疑的F-FDG摄取病变数量。在背景器官和高代谢靶病变中测量标准化摄取值(SUV)。此外,我们使用肝脏信噪比(SNR)客观评估图像质量。

结果

dPET在30名参与者中的3名中发现了4个额外的F-FDG摄取病变,视觉图像质量有所改善。背景器官SUV的标准差在数字系统中显著低于sPET,且dPET能够获取具有更好SNR的图像(11.13±2.01对8.71±1.32,<0.001)。扫描仪之间SUV值的可靠性显示出极好的一致性。对81个病变的Bland-Altman图分析显示,扫描仪之间对于大多数SUVmax和SUVpeak值具有可接受的一致性。未发现SUV值与正电子发射断层显像/计算机断层扫描双时相采集时间延迟之间的关系。

结论

与sPET相比,dPET提供了更好的图像质量和病变可检测性。不同厂家的两种正电子发射断层显像/计算机断层扫描系统的半定量值具有可比性。这项初步研究将成为两种系统在临床实践中可能互换使用的重要依据。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Image Quality and Semi-quantitative Measurements with Digital PET/CT and Standard PET/CT from Different Vendors.
Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Oct;54(5):233-240. doi: 10.1007/s13139-020-00661-8. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
2
Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study.
Ann Nucl Med. 2022 Aug;36(8):756-764. doi: 10.1007/s12149-022-01758-0. Epub 2022 Jun 21.
3
More advantages in detecting bone and soft tissue metastases from prostate cancer using F-PSMA PET/CT.
Hell J Nucl Med. 2019 Jan-Apr;22(1):6-9. doi: 10.1967/s002449910952. Epub 2019 Mar 7.
4
Image Quality and Quantitative PET Parameters of Low-Dose [F]FDG PET in a Long Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Scanner.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Oct 18;13(20):3240. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13203240.
5
Performance of Digital PET Compared with High-Resolution Conventional PET in Patients with Cancer.
J Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;61(10):1448-1454. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.238105. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
7
Are lesion features reproducible between F-FDG PET/CT images when acquired on analog or digital PET/CT scanners?
Eur Radiol. 2021 May;31(5):3071-3079. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07390-8. Epub 2020 Oct 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative study of physiological FDG uptake in small structures between silicon photomultiplier-based PET and conventional PET.
Ann Nucl Med. 2024 Feb;38(2):131-138. doi: 10.1007/s12149-023-01884-3. Epub 2023 Nov 9.
2
Assessment of Image Quality and Lesion Detectability With Digital PET/CT System.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Feb 22;8:629096. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.629096. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

3
Digital PET/CT: a new intriguing chance for clinical nuclear medicine and personalized molecular imaging.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1222-1225. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04300-z. Epub 2019 Mar 11.
4
Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1383-1390. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-4260-z. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
5
Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1745-1750. doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4256-0. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
7
Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT.
Phys Med. 2017 Oct;42:203-210. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.09.124. Epub 2017 Oct 25.
8
Advanced Functional Tumor Imaging and Precision Nuclear Medicine Enabled by Digital PET Technologies.
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017 May 16;2017:5260305. doi: 10.1155/2017/5260305. eCollection 2017.
9
Influence of region-of-interest determination on measurement of signal-to-noise ratio in liver on PET images.
Ann Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;32(1):1-6. doi: 10.1007/s12149-017-1215-y. Epub 2017 Oct 20.
10
18F-FDG silicon photomultiplier PET/CT: A pilot study comparing semi-quantitative measurements with standard PET/CT.
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 5;12(6):e0178936. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178936. eCollection 2017.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验