Ultrafast cadmium-zinc-telluride-based renal single-photon emission computed tomography: clinical validation.
Children
Diagnostic imaging
Kidney disease
Radionuclide imaging
Journal
Pediatric radiology
ISSN: 1432-1998
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0365332
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
20
01
2023
accepted:
14
04
2023
revised:
13
04
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
12
5
2023
entrez:
12
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
One of the main limitations of To evaluate the feasibility of short DMSA scan acquisition times using a cadmium-zinc-telluride-based single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) system in children. The data of 27 children (median age: 4 years; 16 girls) who underwent DMSA SPECT were retrospectively analyzed. Both planar and SPECT DMSA were performed. SPECT images were analyzed using coronal-simulated planar two-dimensional images. A reduction in SPECT acquisition time was simulated to provide 4 series (SPECT-15 min, SPECT-10 min, SPECT-5 min and SPECT-2.5 min). A direct comparison of the planar and SPECT series was performed, including semi-quantification reproducibility, image quality (mean quality score on a scale of 0 to 2) and inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of the scintigraphic patterns. The overall image quality score (± standard deviation) was 1.3 (± 0.6) for the planar data set, 1.6 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-15 min data set, 1.4 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-10 min data set, 1.0 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-5 min data set and 0.6 (± 0.6) for the SPECT-2.5 min data set. Median Kappa coefficients for inter-observer agreement between planar and SPECT images were greater than 0.83 for all series and all readers except one reader for the SPECT-2.5 min series (median Kappa coefficient = 0.77). Shortening SPECT acquisitions to 5 min is feasible with minimal impact on images in terms of quality and reproducibility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
One of the main limitations of
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the feasibility of short DMSA scan acquisition times using a cadmium-zinc-telluride-based single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) system in children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The data of 27 children (median age: 4 years; 16 girls) who underwent DMSA SPECT were retrospectively analyzed. Both planar and SPECT DMSA were performed. SPECT images were analyzed using coronal-simulated planar two-dimensional images. A reduction in SPECT acquisition time was simulated to provide 4 series (SPECT-15 min, SPECT-10 min, SPECT-5 min and SPECT-2.5 min). A direct comparison of the planar and SPECT series was performed, including semi-quantification reproducibility, image quality (mean quality score on a scale of 0 to 2) and inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of the scintigraphic patterns.
RESULTS
The overall image quality score (± standard deviation) was 1.3 (± 0.6) for the planar data set, 1.6 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-15 min data set, 1.4 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-10 min data set, 1.0 (± 0.5) for the SPECT-5 min data set and 0.6 (± 0.6) for the SPECT-2.5 min data set. Median Kappa coefficients for inter-observer agreement between planar and SPECT images were greater than 0.83 for all series and all readers except one reader for the SPECT-2.5 min series (median Kappa coefficient = 0.77).
CONCLUSION
Shortening SPECT acquisitions to 5 min is feasible with minimal impact on images in terms of quality and reproducibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37171639
doi: 10.1007/s00247-023-05682-x
pii: 10.1007/s00247-023-05682-x
pmc: PMC10421805
doi:
Substances chimiques
CdZnTe
0
Technetium Tc 99m Dimercaptosuccinic Acid
494JNQ8L28
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1911-1918Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021 Feb;22(2):165-177
pubmed: 33426812
J Nucl Cardiol. 2021 Dec;28(6):2518-2529
pubmed: 32026329
Radiology. 2009 May;251(2):511-6
pubmed: 19304919
Semin Nucl Med. 2017 May;47(3):204-228
pubmed: 28417852
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Dec 17;10(12):
pubmed: 33348530
J Nucl Med. 2020 Nov;61(11):1684-1690
pubmed: 32198313
J Nucl Med. 2019 Nov;60(11):12N
pubmed: 31676710
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jan;91(1081):20160402
pubmed: 27845567
Clin Radiol. 2021 Apr;76(4):315.e13-315.e20
pubmed: 33339592
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 May;34(5):796-798
pubmed: 17406866
J Nucl Med. 2019 Aug;60(8):14N-16N
pubmed: 31371622
J Nucl Cardiol. 2023 Aug;30(4):1385-1395
pubmed: 36574175
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Mar;47(3):729-733
pubmed: 31728589
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Dec;207(6):1324-1328
pubmed: 27623376
Phys Med. 2022 Mar;95:83-88
pubmed: 35134649