Home > Journals > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Past Issues > Articles online first > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 Feb 16

CURRENT ISSUETHE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING

A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging


A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413


eTOC

 

The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 Feb 16

language: English

Half-time bone scintigraphy in prostate and breast cancer patients

Willem GROOTJANS 1, Sara J. SERéM 2, Monique I. GOMES 2, Linda HEIJMEN 1, Ben F. BULTEN 1, 3, Eddy P. MIJNHEERE 1, Rick HERMSEN 1, Wim J. VAN DEN BROEK 1

1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2 Coimbra Health School, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Portugal; 3 MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands


PDF  REPRINTS


BACKGROUND: Developments in image reconstruction techniques for planar imaging, also known as enhanced planar processing (EPP), enabled the possibility to reconstruct planar scintigraphic images with low count statistics, providing the opportunity to reduce image acquisition times. In this study, the performance of EPP for oncologic half-time bone scintigraphy images was evaluated.
METHODS: The EPP software was evaluated for different imaging conditions using standardized phantom experiments. Additionally, 51 patients with prostate and breast cancer were prospectively included and underwent bone scintigraphy using a standard and half-time protocol. Independent reading was performed on three image types (standard, half-time non-processed, and half-time EPP) by three observers, scoring the number and anatomical location of lesions, image quality, and diagnostic confidence by which the definitive diagnosis was made.
RESULTS: EPP images had improved contrast and lower noise levels compared to the non-processed half-time images. It was determined that EPP images acquired at double scan speed had similar image quality to the standard non-processed images. There was substantial agreement with respect to diagnosis and diagnostic confidence based on all three image types between the observers. Image quality in the EPP images was higher with respect to the non-processed half-time images, and was comparable to the standard images.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic confidence was not affected by reduction in image acquisition time. There was substantial agreement between all three observers with respect to the diagnosis provided in all three image types. Subjective and objective image quality improved when half-time images were processed with EPP software.

top of page