scholarly journals Image quality assessments according to the angle of tilt of a flex tilt coil supporting device: An ACR phantom study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ho Beom Lee ◽  
Ji Sung Jang ◽  
Ki Baek Lee ◽  
Sung Min Kim
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Phantom Study ◽  
Quality Assessments ◽  
Supporting Device

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoko Satoh ◽  
Utaroh Motosugi ◽  
Masamichi Imai ◽  
Yoshie Omiya ◽  
Hiroshi Onishi
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Chest Wall ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Phantom Study ◽  
Breast Lesions ◽  
Clinical Images ◽  
Dedicated Breast Pet ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Using phantoms and clinical studies in prone hanging breast imaging, we assessed the image quality of a commercially available dedicated breast PET (dbPET) at the detector’s edge, where mammary glands near the chest wall are located. These are compared to supine PET/CT breast images of the same clinical subjects. Methods A breast phantom with four spheres (16-, 10-, 7.5-, and 5-mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background activity concentration 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 all spheres, and coefficient of variation of the background (CVB) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard supine 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/CT. Results Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC of all spheres 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. Conclusion The phantom study revealed poorer image quality at < 2-cm distance 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.

Assessment of image quality of 64-row Dual Source versus Single Source CT coronary angiography on heart rate: A phantom study

2009 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dikkers ◽  
M.J.W. Greuter ◽  
W. Kristanto ◽  
P.M.A. van Ooijen ◽  
P.E. Sijens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Ct Coronary Angiography ◽  
Phantom Study ◽  
Single Source ◽  
Dual Source

Effects of scanning and reconstruction parameters on image quality in electron-beam CT angiography: Coronary artery phantom study

2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 927-933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Lu ◽  
Ruping Dai ◽  
Hua Bai ◽  
Sha He ◽  
ShiLiang Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Ct Angiography ◽  
Phantom Study ◽  
Electron Beam Ct

scholarly journals Image quality of conventional images of dual‐layerSPECTRAL CT: A phantom study

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 3031-3042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fasco Ommen ◽  
Edwin Bennink ◽  
Alain Vlassenbroek ◽  
Jan Willem Dankbaar ◽  
Arnold M.R. Schilham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Phantom Study
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document