Evidence Hub

Evaluation of Collimators in a High-Resolution, Whole-Body SPECT/CT Device with a Dual-Head Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Detector for 123I-FP-CIT SPECT.

Hiraki H, Ito T, Onoguchi M, Tsuchikame H, Shishido M, Maeno T, Shibutani T, Sanada H

Journal of nuclear medicine technology, 2023

41 participants

Abstract

The study aim was to evaluate the adaptation of collimators to 123I-N-fluoropropyl-2b-carbomethoxy-3b-(4-iodophenyl)nortropane (123I-FP-CIT) dopamine transporter SPECT (DAT-SPECT) by a high-resolution whole-body SPECT/CT system with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector (C-SPECT) in terms of image quality, quantitation, diagnostic performance, and acquisition time. Methods: Using a C-SPECT device equipped with a wide-energy, high-resolution collimator and a medium-energy, high-resolution sensitivity (MEHRS) collimator, we evaluated the image quality and quantification of DAT-SPECT for an anthropomorphic striatal phantom. Ordered-subset expectation maximization iterative reconstruction with resolution recovery, scatter, and attenuation correction was used, and the optimal collimator was determined on the basis of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), percentage contrast, and specific binding ratio. The acquisition time that could be reduced using the optimal collimator was determined. The optimal collimator was used to retrospectively evaluate diagnostic accuracy via receiver-operating-characteristic analysis and specific binding ratios for 41 consecutive patients who underwent DAT-SPECT. Results: When the collimators were compared in the phantom verification, the CNR and percentage contrast were significantly higher for the MEHRS collimator than for the wide-energy high-resolution collimator (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the CNR between 30 and 15 min of imaging…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 41 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free