This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVES: Y using Monte Carlo simulation codes under the same conditions and to compare them. METHODS: Y were set to 50, 100, 150, and 200 kBq/mL, and the concentrations of the hot spheres were 10, 20, and 40 times of those of the background concentrations. The acquisition time was set to 30 min, and the simulated sinogram data were reconstructed using the ordered subset expectation maximization method. The contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were employed to evaluate the image qualities. RESULTS: The CRC values of SPECT images were less than 40%, while those of PET images were more than 40% when the hot sphere was larger than 20 mm in diameter. The CNR values of PET images of hot spheres of diameter smaller than 20 mm were larger than those of SPECT images. The CNR values mostly exceeded 4, which is a criterion to evaluate the discernibility of hot areas. In the case of SPECT, hot spheres of diameter smaller than 20 mm were not discernable. On the contrary, the CNR values of PET images decreased to the level of SPECT, in the case of low concentration. CONCLUSION: Y images were better than those of Bremsstrahlung SPECT images. However, the superiority of PET image became critical in the case of low activity concentrations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takahashi et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: