Comparison of (18)F SPECT with PET in myocardial imaging: A realistic thorax-cardiac phantom study

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with fluorine-18 ((18)F) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and flow tracer such as Rubidium-82 ((82)Rb) is an established method for evaluating an ischemic but viable myocardium. However, the high cost of PET imaging restricts its wider clinical use. Therefore, less expensive (18)F FDG single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging has been considered as an alternative to (18)F FDG PET imaging. The purpose of the work is to compare SPECT with PET in myocardial perfusion/viability imaging. METHODS: A nonuniform RH-2 thorax-heart phantom was used in the SPECT and PET acquisitions. Three inserts, 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm in diameter, were placed in the left ventricular (LV) wall to simulate infarcts. The phantom acquisition was performed sequentially with 7.4 MBq of (18)F and 22.2 MBq of Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) in the SPECT study and with 7.4 MBq of (18)F and 370 MBq of (82)Rb in the PET study. SPECT and PET data were processed using standard reconstruction software provided by vendors. Circumferential profiles of the short-axis slices, the contrast and viability of the inserts were used to evaluate the SPECT and PET images. RESULTS: The contrast for 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm inserts were for (18)F PET data, 1.0 ± 0.01, 0.67 ± 0.02 and 0.25 ± 0.01, respectively. For (82)Rb PET data, the corresponding contrast values were 0.61 ± 0.02, 0.37 ± 0.02 and 0.19 ± 0.01, respectively. For (18)F SPECT the contrast values were, 0.31 ± 0.03 and 0.20 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts, respectively. For (99m)Tc SPECT the contrast values were, 0.63 ± 0.04 and 0.24 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts respectively. In SPECT, the 1 cm insert was not detectable. In the SPECT study, all three inserts were falsely diagnosed as "viable", while in the PET study, only the 1 cm insert was diagnosed falsely "viable". CONCLUSION: For smaller defects the (99m)Tc/(18)F SPECT imaging cannot entirely replace the more expensive (82)Rb/(18)F PET for myocardial perfusion/viability imaging, due to poorer image spatial resolution and poorer defect contrast

Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging and dosimetry of yttrium-90 (90Y) in patients with unresectable hepatic tumors who have received intra-arterial radioembolization therapy with 90Y microspheres

Abstract Background The aim of our study was to compare 90Y dosimetry obtained from PET/MRI versus PET/CT post-therapy imaging among patients with primary or metastatic hepatic tumors. First, a water-filled Jaszczak phantom containing fillable sphere with 90Y-chloride was acquired on both the PET/CT and PET/MRI systems, in order to check the cross-calibration of the modalities. Following selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with 90Y microspheres, 32 patients were imaged on a PET/CT system, immediately followed by a PET/MRI study. Reconstructed images were transferred to a common platform and used to calculate 90Y dosimetry. A Passing-Bablok regression scatter diagram and the Bland and Altman method were used to analyze the difference between the dosimetry values. Results The phantom study showed that both modalities were calibrated with less than 1% error. The mean liver doses for the 32 subjects calculated from PET/CT and PET/MRI were 51.6 ± 24.7 Gy and 46.5 ± 22.7 Gy, respectively, with a mean difference of 5.1 ± 5.0 Gy. The repeatability coefficient was 9.0 (18.5% of the mean). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was very high, ρ = 0.97. Although the maximum dose to the liver can be significantly different (up to 40%), mean liver doses from each modalities were relatively close, with a difference of 18.5% or less. Conclusions The two main contributors to the difference in 90Y dosimetry calculations using PET/CT versus PET/MRI can be attributed to the differences in regions of interest (ROIs) and differences attributed to attenuation correction. Due to the superior soft-tissue contrast of MRI, liver contours are usually better seen than in CT images. However, PET/CT provides better quantification of PET images, due to better attenuation correction. In spite of these differences, our results demonstrate that the dosimetry values obtained from PET/MRI and PET/CT in post-therapy 90Y studies were similar