Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532876›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2021

Clinical validation of time reduction strategy in continuous step-and-shoot mode during SPECT acquisition.

Valentin Picone, Nikolaos Makris, Fanny Boutevin, Sarah Roy, Margot Playe, Michael Soussan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Experimental evaluation of absolute quantification inJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valentin PiconeGE Healthcare, 78530, 283 Rue de la Miniere, Buc, France.
Nikolaos MakrisGE Healthcare, 78530, 283 Rue de la Miniere, Buc, France.
Fanny BoutevinGE Healthcare, 78530, 283 Rue de la Miniere, Buc, France.
Sarah RoyGE Healthcare, 78530, 283 Rue de la Miniere, Buc, France.
Margot PlayeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Avicenne Hospital, HUPSSD, APHP, Paris, France.
Michael SoussanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Avicenne Hospital, HUPSSD, APHP, Paris, France. Michael.soussan@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0798-4749
Inserm · FRUniversité Sorbonne Paris Nord · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SwiftScan solution (General Electric Healthcare) combines a new low-energy high-resolution sensitivity collimator and a tomographic step-and-shoot continuous (SSC) mode acquisition. The purpose of this study is to determine whether SSC mode can be used in clinical practice with shorter examination times, while preserving image quality and ensuring accurate semi-quantification. Twenty bone scan and 10 lung scan studies were randomly selected over a period of 2 months. Three sets of image datasets were produced: step-and-shoot (SS) acquisition, simulated 25% count reduction using the Poisson resampling method (SimSS), and SimSS continuous acquisition (SimSSC), where SimSS was summed with counts acquired during detector head rotation. Visual assessment (5-point Likert scale, 2 readers) and semi-quantitative evaluation (50 focal uptake from 10 bone studies), assessed by SUV

resultsIntra-reader agreement was substantial for reader 1 (k = 0.71) and for reader 2 (k = 0.61). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for SS set (k = 0.93) and moderate for SimSSC (k = 0.52). Bland-Altman analysis showed a good interchangeability of SS and SimSSC SUV values. The mean CNR between SS and SimSSC was not significantly different: 42.9 ± 43.7 [23.7-62.1] vs. 43.1 ± 46 [22.9-63.3] (p = 0.46), respectively. COV values, assessing noise level, did not deviate significantly between SS and SimSSC: 0.20 ± 0.08 [0.18-0.23] vs. 0.21 ± 0.08, [0.18-0.23] (p = 0.15), respectively, whereas a significant difference was demonstrated between SS and SimSS: 0.20 ± 0.08 [0.18-0.23] vs. 0.23 ± 0.09 [0.20-0.25] (p < 0.0001), respectively.

conclusionsSSC mode acquisition decreases examination time by approximately 25% in bone and lung SPECT/CT studies compared to SS mode (~ 2 min per single-bed SPECT), without compromising image quality and signal quantification. This SPECT sensitivity improvement also offers the prospect of more comfortable exams, with less motion artifacts, especially in painful or dyspneic patients.

Indexed as

BoneLungsSemi-quantificationSPECT/CTSUVSwiftScan

Identifiers

PMID33532876
PMCPMC7855188
OpenAlexW3126463839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.