Performance evaluation of multipinhole μSPECT systems for short time frames

Master thesis (2017)

Authors

G. Vranas Mechanical Engineering

Contributors

D.R. Schaart (supervisor 1)
M.C. Goorden (supervisor 1)
Faculty
Mechanical Engineering
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

27-11-2017

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Mechanical Engineering

Abstract

The need of image (frame) acquisitions within short time intervals is of major importance for preclinical SPECT imaging. The short frame times enable higher temporal resolution which is required in bio-distribution and pharmacokinetic studies where fast dynamic imaging is performed. The present study evaluates and compares the performance of two different preclinical multipinhole SPECT systems (NanoScan, VECTor) for short frames acquisitions.
Prior to the systems comparison, the comparison and selection of the best performing fast imaging mode provided by NanoScan system (Mediso) was performed. The fast imaging modes of this system provide acquisitions with 1,2 and 3 detector position around the animal bed. This comparison was performed by using uniform phantoms (syringes) and the rods of the NEMA NU4IQ phantom (frames: 6-30s). The down-sized version of NU4IQ phantom (SPECTIQ phantom) was used in this study to compare the performance of VECTor (MILabs) and NanoScan when performing acquisitions with short frame times (18s-600s, whole body scans). The quality of the acquired images was assessed in terms of absolute quantification (recovery coefficient), noise levels and visual evaluation.
The quantification with the NanoScan was accurate (±5%) regardless of times frames duration and activity concentrations when imaging large structures. The increase in number of detector positions yielded images with lower noise levels. In the case of small structures, acquisition with 3 detector positions (Semi-3 mode) appeared to provide more accurate activity recovery compared to acquisitions with 1 (stationary mode) and 2 detector positions (Semi-2
mode). Especially in the case of the 2mm diameter rod of the NU4IQ phantom, the Semi-3 mode appears to provide significantly more accurate activity recovery (30s frame). The systems comparison showed activity recovery with up to 5% deviation from the dose calibrator measurement when imaging the uniform region of SPECTIQ phantom (d = 21mm). Both systems could recover the three largest rods (d = 1.5, 1.0, 0.75mm) for the longest frames used(180,360,600s). None of the systems could recover the two smallest rods of the phantom (d=0.5,0.35mm). As the frame time decreased, both systems could recover less number of rods. VECTor appeared to provide higher activity recovery than NanoScan for the three largest rods of the phantom. However, as the frame time decreased the differences became less significant. Furthermore, VECTor provided and 22.2% and 46.6% less spillover in airand water-filled phantom regions (after reaching convergence) than NanoScan did.
The performances of two preclinical SPECT systems (NanoScan, VECTor) for short time acquisitionswere compared. The conducted experiments showed that the systems perform equally when conducting short frames imaging. Furthermore, the fast imaging mode of NanoScan employing three detector positions showed better performance than the other two fast imaging modes provided by this system.