Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 279–284 | Cite as

Fundamental study of hot spot detectability in 3-dimensional positron emission tomography

  • Hong ZhangEmail author
  • Tomio Inoue
  • Saleh Alyafei
  • Mei Tian
  • Noboru Oriuchi
  • Akihiro Ichikawa
  • Kunio Matsubara
  • Keigo Endo
Original Articles

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the detectability of small hot lesions with the 3-dimensional transmission/emission (3D T/E) acquisition mode in FDG-PET scan. The correlation of target detectability, target size, target to non-target uptake ratio (T/N ratio) and standardized uptake value (SUV) were studied. Small hot lesions ranged from 4.4 mm to 36.9 mm in diameter were located in cylindrical phantom. The images of phantoms with a T/N ratio of 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 9.6, 13.2, 17.5, 23.8 and 30.3 were obtained with 2-dimensional transmission/emission (2D T/E) scan and 3D T/E scans. Targets in diameter more than 10.6 mm in diameter with an actual T/N ratio ranged from 6.0 to 30.3 could be identified on the images obtained with all the 2D T/E and 3D T/E acquisition modes. The detectability efficiency of small hot target in 2D T/E and 3D T/E scans was as same (77.8%). The T/N ratio of targets from 2D T/E images was 30% to 48.4% different to that from 3D T/E image, and the SUV of the target from the 2D T/E images was almost the same as that from 3D T/E images. This study revealed that 3D T/E scanning had similar hot spot detectability to 2D T/E scanning; 3D T/E and 2D T/E scanning had the same faculty for semiquantitative analysis using SUV. These findings may be helpful for the diagnosis and understanding of 3D T/E FDG-PET in hot lesion detection.

Key words

2-dimensional and 3-dimensional PET T/N ratio SUV hot spot detectability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Coleman RE. Revealing biochemistry in a single image.J Nucl Med 36 (9): 32N-33N, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Okada J, Yoshikawa K, Itami M, Imaseki K, Uno K, Itami J, et al. Positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in malignant lymphoma: a comparison with proliferative activity.J Nucl Med 33: 325–329, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, Lehner B, Kimmig B, Engenhart R, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation.Radiology 170: 329–332, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black KL, Hawkins RA, Kim KT, Becker DP, Lerner C, Marciano D. Use of thallium-201 SPECT to quantitate malignancy grade of gliomas.J. Neurosurg 71: 342–346, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin J, Leung W, Stephen KWH, Kumta SM, Metreweli C, Johnson PJ. Quantitative evaluation of thallium-201 uptake in predicting chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma.Eur J Nucl Med 22: 553–555, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, Paine SS, Harris LK, Goodman PC. Persistent or recurrent brochogenic carcinoma: Detection with PET and 2-[F-18]-2-deoxy-d-glucose.Radiology 191: 379–382, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strauss, LG, Conti PS. The application of PET in clinical oncology.J Nucl Med 32: 623–648, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boecker H, Ceballos BA, Bartenstein P, Weidl A, Siebner HR, Fassbender T, et al. Sensory processing in Parkinson's disease: investigation with 3D H2 15O-PET.Brain 122: 1651–1665, 1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badawi RD. 3D-mode acquisition in clinical PET.Nucl Med Commun 18: 801–804, 1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamamoto S, Amano M, Miura S, Iida H, Kanno I. Deadtime correction method using random coincidence for PET.J Nucl Med 27: 1925–1928, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iida H, Miura S, Kanno I, Murakami M, Takahashi K, Uemura K. Design and evaluation of HEADTOME IV: a whole body positron emission tomographyIEEE Trans Nucl Sci NS-36: 1006–1010, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujiwara T, Watanuki S, Yamamoto S, Miyake M, Seo S, Itoh M, et al. Performance evaluation of a large axial field-of-view PET scanner: SET-2400W.Ann Nucl Med 11 (4): 307–313, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang H, Alyafei S, Inoue T, Matsubara K, Tomiyoshi K, Endo K, et al. Comparison on two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner.Eur J Nucl Med 25: 1141, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanaka G: Japanese Reference Man 1988.Annuals of Japan Radiological Society 48: 509–513, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowe VJ, Duhaylonsod FG, Patz EF, Delong DM, Hoffman JM, Wolfe WG, et al. Pulmonary abnormalities and PET data analysis. A retrospective study.Radiology 202: 435–439, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ollinger JM. Model-based scatter correction for fully 3D PET.Phys Med Biol 41: 153–176, 1996.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tomio Inoue
    • 1
  • Saleh Alyafei
    • 1
  • Mei Tian
    • 1
  • Noboru Oriuchi
    • 2
  • Akihiro Ichikawa
    • 1
  • Kunio Matsubara
    • 1
  • Keigo Endo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear MedicineGunma University School of MedicineMaebashiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineFirst Hospital of Shanxi Medical UniversityShanxiPeople's Republic of China

Personalised recommendations