Clinical practice guideline for dedicated breast PET

Hosono, Makoto; Saga, Tsuneo; Ito, Kengo; Kumita, Shin‐ichiro; Sasaki, Masayuki; Senda, Michio; Hatazawa, Jun; Watanabe, Hiroshi; Ito, Hiroshi; Kanaya, Shinichi; Kimura, Yuichi; Saji, Hideo; Jinnouchi, Seishi; Fukukita, Hiroyoshi; Murakami, Koji; Kinuya, Seigo; Yamazaki, Junichi; Uchiyama, Mayuki; Uno, Koichi; Katô, Katsuhiko; Kawano, Tsuyoshi; Kubota, Keiichi; Togawa, Takashi; Honda, Norinari; Maruno, Hirotaka; Yoshimura, Mana; Kawamoto, Masami; Ozawa, Yukihiko

doi:10.1007/s12149-014-0857-2

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the detectability of lesions smaller than 5 mm was not evaluated in this study. The cylinder and four spheres were lled with 18 F-FDG solution at a sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio of 8:1 in accordance with a previous study [14]. The background radioactivity at the start of data acquisition by dbPET was set to 2.46 kBq/mL.…”

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nal score was the mean of the scores from three readers. The visual assessment was performed based on the Japanese guidelines [18]. Physical analysis was also performed using syngo.via VB10.…”

Section: Analyses Of Phantom Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Background 18 F-uorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has become one of the most useful tools in diagnostic imaging for cancer. Many studies have demonstrated the e cacy of whole-body FDG-PET/CT in staging or re-staging, in monitoring the response to therapy, and for predicting the prognosis of patients with breast cancer [1][2][3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Motosugi²,

Imai

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We assessed image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) at the detector's edge by phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and % background variability (%N5mm), % contrast (%QH,5mm), and contrast-to-noise ratio (QH,5mm/N5mm) for the 5 mm sphere; and coefficient of variation of the background (CVbackground) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical cases were analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: Closer to the detector’s edge, the %N5mm and CVbackground increased and %QH,5mm and QH,5mm/N5mm decreased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.1±6.2 vs. 6.5±3.4, p=0.0001) and non-peripheral (13.1±7.1 vs. 7.7±7.4, p=0.0004) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.1±6.2 vs. 13.1±7.1, p=0.6367).Conclusion: The phantom study revealed poorer image quality closer to the detector edge at a depth of 1/8 of the axial field of view (FOV) than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, lesion detectability of dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are within the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

Section: Development and Preparation Of The Breast Phantommentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analyses Of Phantom Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Motosugi²,

Imai

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The final score was the mean of the scores from three readers. The visual assessment was performed based on the Japanese guideline [18]. Physical analysis was also performed using syngo.…”

Section: Analyses Of Phantom Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Satoh¹,

Imai²,

Omiya³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose : We assessed image quality of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) at the detector's edge by phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm in diameter) was filled with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution of sphere-to-background ratio was 8:1. It was positioned such that the spheres were five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and % background variability ( %N 5mm ), % contrast ( %Q H ,5mm ), contrast-to-noise ratio ( Q H ,5mm / N 5mm ), and coefficient of variation of the background ( CV background ) were calculated. Next, tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was also compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: As closer to the detector’s edge, the %N 5mm and CV background increased and %Q H ,5mm and Q H ,5mm / N 5mm decreased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. With regard to clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.1±6.2 vs. 6.5±3.4, p =0.0001) and non-peripheral (13.1±7.1 vs. 7.7±7.4, p =0.0004) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.1±6.2 vs. 13.1±7.1, p= 0.6367).Conclusion : In the phantom study, the image quality decreased closer to the detector’s edge than at a depth of 1/8. In clinical studies, however, the lesion detectability of dbPET was the same even if the lesion was close to the detector’s edge or not, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

“…The nal score for the visibility of the smallest sphere was the mean of the scores from three readers. The visual assessment was performed based on the Japanese guidelines [20]. A circular ROI with a diameter of 5 mm was placed on the central slice of the 5-mm hot sphere.…”

Section: Analyses Of Phantom Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Satoh

Imai

Omiya

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) scanner (Elmamo, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) has received approval from the Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and is commercially available in Japan. We assessed image quality of dbPET at the detector's edge, where the mammary glands near the chest wall are located in phantom and clinical studies.Methods: A breast phantom with four spheres (16, 10, 7.5, and 5 mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for the 5-mm sphere, and coefficient of variation of the background (CVB) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard spine PET/CT and prone dbPET were retrospectively analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/computed tomography (CT).Results: Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC decreased while the CVB increased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.38±6.41 vs 6.73±3.5, p=0.0006) and non-peripheral (12.44±5.94 vs 7.71±7.1, p=0.0183) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups (12.4±6.4 vs 12.4±5.9, p=0.8261).Conclusion: The phantom study revealed poorer image quality closer to the detector edge at a depth of <2 cm from the detector's edge than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, the visibility of breast lesions with dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are at least 2 cm from the edge of the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

show abstract

Clinical practice guideline for dedicated breast PET

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography: Can small breast cancer near the chest wall be detected ?

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About