Advanced search
1 file | 636.72 KB Add to list

Performance evaluation of small-animal multi pinhole µSPECT scanners for mouse imaging

Author
Organization
Abstract
We compared the performance of three commercial small-animal mu SPECT scanners equipped with multipinhole general purpose (GP) and multipinhole high-resolution (HR) collimators designed for imaging mice. Spatial resolution, image uniformity, point source sensitivity and contrast recovery were determined for the U-SPECT-II (MILabs), the NanoSPECT-NSO (BioScan) and the X-SPECT (GE) scanners. The pinhole diameters of the HR collimator were 0.35 mm, 0.6 mm and 0.5 mm for these three systems respectively. A pinhole diameter of 1 mm was used for the GP collimator. To cover a broad field of imaging applications three isotopes were used with various photon energies: Tc-99m (140 keV), In-111 (171 and 245 keV) and I-125 (27 keV). Spatial resolution and reconstructed image uniformity were evaluated in both HR and a GP mode with hot rod phantoms, line sources and a uniform phantom. Point source sensitivity and contrast recovery measures were additionally obtained in the GP mode with a novel contrast recovery phantom developed in-house containing hot and cold submillimetre capillaries on a warm background. In hot rod phantom images, capillaries as small as 0.4 mm with the U-SPECT-II, 0.75 mm with the X-SPECT and 0.6 mm with the NanoSPECT-NSO could be resolved with the HR collimators for Tc-99m. The NanoSPECT-NSO achieved this resolution in a smaller field-of-view (FOV) and line source measurements showed that this device had a lower axial than transaxial resolution. For all systems, the degradation in image resolution was only minor when acquiring the more challenging isotopes In-111 and I-125. The point source sensitivity with Tc-99m and GP collimators was 3,984 cps/MBq for the U-SPECT-II, 620 cps/MBq for the X-SPECT and 751 cps/MBq for the NanoSPECT-NSO. The effects of volume sensitivity over a larger object were evaluated by measuring the contrast recovery phantom in a realistic FOV and acquisition time. For 1.5-mm rods at a noise level of 8 %, the contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) was 42 %, 37 % and 34 % for the U-SPECT-II, X-SPECT and NanoSPECT-NSO, respectively. At maximal noise levels of 10 %, a CRCcold of 70 %, 52 % and 42 % were obtained for the U-SPECT-II, X-SPECT and NanoSPECT-NSO, respectively. When acquiring Tc-99m with the GP collimators, the integral/differential uniformity values were 30 %/14 % for the U-SPECT-II, 50 %/30 % for the X-SPECT and 38 %/25 % for the NanoSPECT-NSO. When using the HR collimators, these uniformity values remained similar for U-SPECT-II and X-SPECT, but not for the NanoSPECT-NSO for which the uniformity deteriorated with larger volumes. We compared three mu SPECT systems by acquiring and analysing mouse-sized phantoms including a contrast recovery phantom built in-house offering the ability to measure the hot contrast on a warm background in the submillimetre resolution range. We believe our evaluation addressed the differences in imaging potential for each system to realistically image tracer distributions in mouse-sized objects.
Keywords
MULTI-PINHOLE SPECT, HIS-ANNEXIN A5, ULTRA-HIGH-RESOLUTION, SYSTEM CALIBRATION, NOISE PROPERTIES, RODENT-BRAIN, EM ALGORITHM, CELL-DEATH, RECONSTRUCTION, TOMOGRAPHY, Small-animal imaging, SPECT, Pinhole, Multipinhole

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 636.72 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Deleye, Steven, Roel Van Holen, Jeroen Verhaeghe, et al. “Performance Evaluation of Small-animal Multi Pinhole µSPECT Scanners for Mouse Imaging.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING 40.5 (2013): 744–758. Print.
APA
Deleye, S., Van Holen, R., Verhaeghe, J., Vandenberghe, S., Stroobants, S., & Staelens, S. (2013). Performance evaluation of small-animal multi pinhole µSPECT scanners for mouse imaging. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 40(5), 744–758.
Chicago author-date
Deleye, Steven, Roel Van Holen, Jeroen Verhaeghe, Stefaan Vandenberghe, Sigrid Stroobants, and Steven Staelens. 2013. “Performance Evaluation of Small-animal Multi Pinhole µSPECT Scanners for Mouse Imaging.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 40 (5): 744–758.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Deleye, Steven, Roel Van Holen, Jeroen Verhaeghe, Stefaan Vandenberghe, Sigrid Stroobants, and Steven Staelens. 2013. “Performance Evaluation of Small-animal Multi Pinhole µSPECT Scanners for Mouse Imaging.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 40 (5): 744–758.
Vancouver
1.
Deleye S, Van Holen R, Verhaeghe J, Vandenberghe S, Stroobants S, Staelens S. Performance evaluation of small-animal multi pinhole µSPECT scanners for mouse imaging. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING. 2013;40(5):744–58.
IEEE
[1]
S. Deleye, R. Van Holen, J. Verhaeghe, S. Vandenberghe, S. Stroobants, and S. Staelens, “Performance evaluation of small-animal multi pinhole µSPECT scanners for mouse imaging,” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 744–758, 2013.
@article{3120033,
  abstract     = {We compared the performance of three commercial small-animal mu SPECT scanners equipped with multipinhole general purpose (GP) and multipinhole high-resolution (HR) collimators designed for imaging mice.
 
Spatial resolution, image uniformity, point source sensitivity and contrast recovery were determined for the U-SPECT-II (MILabs), the NanoSPECT-NSO (BioScan) and the X-SPECT (GE) scanners. The pinhole diameters of the HR collimator were 0.35 mm, 0.6 mm and 0.5 mm for these three systems respectively. A pinhole diameter of 1 mm was used for the GP collimator. To cover a broad field of imaging applications three isotopes were used with various photon energies: Tc-99m (140 keV), In-111 (171 and 245 keV) and I-125 (27 keV). Spatial resolution and reconstructed image uniformity were evaluated in both HR and a GP mode with hot rod phantoms, line sources and a uniform phantom. Point source sensitivity and contrast recovery measures were additionally obtained in the GP mode with a novel contrast recovery phantom developed in-house containing hot and cold submillimetre capillaries on a warm background.
 
In hot rod phantom images, capillaries as small as 0.4 mm with the U-SPECT-II, 0.75 mm with the X-SPECT and 0.6 mm with the NanoSPECT-NSO could be resolved with the HR collimators for Tc-99m. The NanoSPECT-NSO achieved this resolution in a smaller field-of-view (FOV) and line source measurements showed that this device had a lower axial than transaxial resolution. For all systems, the degradation in image resolution was only minor when acquiring the more challenging isotopes In-111 and I-125. The point source sensitivity with Tc-99m and GP collimators was 3,984 cps/MBq for the U-SPECT-II, 620 cps/MBq for the X-SPECT and 751 cps/MBq for the NanoSPECT-NSO. The effects of volume sensitivity over a larger object were evaluated by measuring the contrast recovery phantom in a realistic FOV and acquisition time. For 1.5-mm rods at a noise level of 8 %, the contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) was 42 %, 37 % and 34 % for the U-SPECT-II, X-SPECT and NanoSPECT-NSO, respectively. At maximal noise levels of 10 %, a CRCcold of 70 %, 52 % and 42 % were obtained for the U-SPECT-II, X-SPECT and NanoSPECT-NSO, respectively. When acquiring Tc-99m with the GP collimators, the integral/differential uniformity values were 30 %/14 % for the U-SPECT-II, 50 %/30 % for the X-SPECT and 38 %/25 % for the NanoSPECT-NSO. When using the HR collimators, these uniformity values remained similar for U-SPECT-II and X-SPECT, but not for the NanoSPECT-NSO for which the uniformity deteriorated with larger volumes.
 
We compared three mu SPECT systems by acquiring and analysing mouse-sized phantoms including a contrast recovery phantom built in-house offering the ability to measure the hot contrast on a warm background in the submillimetre resolution range. We believe our evaluation addressed the differences in imaging potential for each system to realistically image tracer distributions in mouse-sized objects.},
  author       = {Deleye, Steven and Van Holen, Roel and Verhaeghe, Jeroen and Vandenberghe, Stefaan and Stroobants, Sigrid and Staelens, Steven},
  issn         = {1619-7070},
  journal      = {EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING},
  keywords     = {MULTI-PINHOLE SPECT,HIS-ANNEXIN A5,ULTRA-HIGH-RESOLUTION,SYSTEM CALIBRATION,NOISE PROPERTIES,RODENT-BRAIN,EM ALGORITHM,CELL-DEATH,RECONSTRUCTION,TOMOGRAPHY,Small-animal imaging,SPECT,Pinhole,Multipinhole},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {744--758},
  title        = {Performance evaluation of small-animal multi pinhole µSPECT scanners for mouse imaging},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2326-2},
  volume       = {40},
  year         = {2013},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: