Cargando…

The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the clinical utility of xSPECT/CT Bone, a new reconstruction algorithm for single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and compare it with standard SPECT/CT reconstruction. METHODS: Sequential reporting of SPECT/CT followed by xSPECT/CT images in 200 sequential case...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duncan, Iain, Ingold, Nicholas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41824-017-0024-9
_version_ 1783323582191894528
author Duncan, Iain
Ingold, Nicholas
author_facet Duncan, Iain
Ingold, Nicholas
author_sort Duncan, Iain
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the clinical utility of xSPECT/CT Bone, a new reconstruction algorithm for single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and compare it with standard SPECT/CT reconstruction. METHODS: Sequential reporting of SPECT/CT followed by xSPECT/CT images in 200 sequential cases commencing August 2015. Differences between the initial SPECT/CT and the final report (after xSPECT/CT reconstruction) were documented and analysed. 12–18 months after the initial study follow-up, clinical data was sought from a subset of cases in which xSPECT/CT changed the primary diagnosis and imaging correlation undertaken in all patients who subsequently had MRI or CT scans of the same region. RESULTS: A majority of the 200 cases were related to assessment of musculoskeletal complaints. The final (scan) diagnosis was changed after reviewing the xSPECT/CT images in 40 (20%) of cases. The reporting physician (Iain Duncan) assessed that the xSPECT/CT had provided more diagnostic information in 71% of cases. A total of 470 additional lesions were found, equivalent to 2.4 lesions per case. In 33 cases of imaging follow-up there was a high degree of correlation with bone scan findings and xSPECT correlated better than SPECT in regard to detailed findings. In only 15/40 cases of diagnostic change could the outcome be verified and in 12/15 the xSPECT/CT revised diagnosis was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational evaluation xSPECT/CT Bone reconstruction offers identifiable imaging improvements over standard SPECT/CT reconstruction algorithms. xSPECT/CT Bone provides an improvement in diagnostic confidence and identifies a greater number of lesions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5954766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59547662018-05-18 The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans Duncan, Iain Ingold, Nicholas Eur J Hybrid Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the clinical utility of xSPECT/CT Bone, a new reconstruction algorithm for single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and compare it with standard SPECT/CT reconstruction. METHODS: Sequential reporting of SPECT/CT followed by xSPECT/CT images in 200 sequential cases commencing August 2015. Differences between the initial SPECT/CT and the final report (after xSPECT/CT reconstruction) were documented and analysed. 12–18 months after the initial study follow-up, clinical data was sought from a subset of cases in which xSPECT/CT changed the primary diagnosis and imaging correlation undertaken in all patients who subsequently had MRI or CT scans of the same region. RESULTS: A majority of the 200 cases were related to assessment of musculoskeletal complaints. The final (scan) diagnosis was changed after reviewing the xSPECT/CT images in 40 (20%) of cases. The reporting physician (Iain Duncan) assessed that the xSPECT/CT had provided more diagnostic information in 71% of cases. A total of 470 additional lesions were found, equivalent to 2.4 lesions per case. In 33 cases of imaging follow-up there was a high degree of correlation with bone scan findings and xSPECT correlated better than SPECT in regard to detailed findings. In only 15/40 cases of diagnostic change could the outcome be verified and in 12/15 the xSPECT/CT revised diagnosis was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational evaluation xSPECT/CT Bone reconstruction offers identifiable imaging improvements over standard SPECT/CT reconstruction algorithms. xSPECT/CT Bone provides an improvement in diagnostic confidence and identifies a greater number of lesions. Springer International Publishing 2018-03-19 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5954766/ /pubmed/29782595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41824-017-0024-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Duncan, Iain
Ingold, Nicholas
The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title_full The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title_fullStr The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title_full_unstemmed The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title_short The clinical value of xSPECT/CT Bone versus SPECT/CT. A prospective comparison of 200 scans
title_sort clinical value of xspect/ct bone versus spect/ct. a prospective comparison of 200 scans
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41824-017-0024-9
work_keys_str_mv AT duncaniain theclinicalvalueofxspectctboneversusspectctaprospectivecomparisonof200scans
AT ingoldnicholas theclinicalvalueofxspectctboneversusspectctaprospectivecomparisonof200scans
AT duncaniain clinicalvalueofxspectctboneversusspectctaprospectivecomparisonof200scans
AT ingoldnicholas clinicalvalueofxspectctboneversusspectctaprospectivecomparisonof200scans