|
KMID : 0861420100140010122
|
|
Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
2010 Volume.14 No. 1 p.122 ~ p.126
|
|
|
The Influence of Iteration and Subset on True X Method in F-18-FPCIT Brain Imaging
|
|
Choi Jae-Min
Kim Kyeong-Sik
NamGoong Chang-Kyoung
Nam Ki-Pyo
Im Ki-Chun
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose:F-18-FPCIT that shows strong familiarity with DAT located at a neural terminal site offers diagnostic information about DAT density state in the region of the striatum especially Parkinson’s disease. In this study, we altered the iteration and subset and measured SUV±SD and Contrasts from phantom images which set up to specific iteration and subset. So, we are going to suggest the appropriate range of the iteration and subset.
Materials and Methods: This study has been performed with 10 normal volunteers who don’t have any history of
Parkinson’s disease or cerebral disease and Flangeless Esser PET Phantom from Data Spectrum Corporation. 5.3±0.2 mCi of F-18-FPCIT was injected to the normal group and PET Phantom was assembled by ACR PET Phantom Instructions and it’s actual ratio between hot spheres and background was 2.35 to 1. Brain and Phantom images were acquired after 3 hours from the time of the injection and images were acquired for ten minutes. Basically, SIEMENS Bio graph 40 True-point was used and True-X method was applied for image reconstruction method. The iteration and Subset were set to 2 iterations, 8 subsets, 3 iterations, 16 subsets, 6 iterations, 16 subsets, 8 iterations, 16 subsets and 8 iterations, 21 subsets respectively. To measure SUVs on the brain images, ROIs were drawn on the right Putamen. Also, Coefficient of variance (CV) was calculated to indicate the uniformity at each iteration and subset combinations. On the phantom study, we measured the actual ratio between hot spheres and back ground at each combinations. Same size’s ROIs were drawn on the same slide and location.
Results:Mean SUVs were 10.60, 12.83, 13.87, 13.98 and 13.5 at each combination. The range of fluctuation by sets were 22.36%, 10.34%, 1.1%, and 4.8% respectively. The range of fluctuation of mean SUV was lowest between 6 iterations 16 subsets and 8 iterations 16 subsets. CV showed 9.07%, 11.46%, 13.56%, 14.91% and 19.47% respectively. This means that the numerical value of the iteration and subset gets higher the image’s uniformity gets worse. The range of fluctuation of CV by sets were 2.39, 2.1, 1.35, and 4.56. The range of fluctuation of uniformity was lowest between 6 iterations, 16 subsets and 8 iterations, 16 subsets. In the contrast test, it showed 1.92:1, 2.12:1, 2.10:1, 2.13:1 and 2.11:1 at each iteration and subset combinations. A Setting of 8 iterations and 16 subsets reappeared most close ratio between hot spheres and background.
Conclusion:Findings on this study, SUVs and uniformity might be calculated differently caused by variable
reconstruction parameters like filter or FWHM. Mean SUV and uniformity showed the lowest range of fluctuation at 6 iterations 16 subsets and 8 iterations 16 subsets. Also, 8 iterations 16 subsets showed the nearest hot sphere to background ratio compared with others. But it can not be concluded that only 6 iterations 16 subsets and 8 iterations 16 subsets can make right images for the clinical diagnosis. There might be more factors that can make better images. For more exact clinical diagnosis through the quantitative analysis of DAT density in the region of striatum we need to secure healthy people’s quantitative values.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
F-18-FPCIT, Iteration, Subset, Reconstruction
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|