ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Subtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in radioembolization: a comparison of four methods.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigation of the Partial Volume Effect in Pre-Dosimetry of Liver Tumors forMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubtraction of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images has a number of clinical applications in e.g. foci localization in ictal/inter-ictal SPECT and defect detection in rest/stress cardiac SPECT. In this work, we investigated the technical performance of SPECT subtraction for the purpose of quantifying the effect of a vasoconstricting drug (angiotensin-II, or AT2) on the Tc-99m-MAA liver distribution in hepatic radioembolization using an innovative interventional hybrid C-arm scanner. Given that subtraction of SPECT images is challenging due to high noise levels and poor resolution, we compared four methods to obtain a difference image in terms of image quality and quantitative accuracy. These methods included (i) image subtraction: subtraction of independently reconstructed SPECT images, (ii) projection subtraction: reconstruction of a SPECT image from subtracted projections, (iii) projection addition: reconstruction by addition of projections as a background term during the iterative reconstruction, and (iv) image addition: simultaneous reconstruction of the difference image and the subtracted image.
resultsDigital simulations (XCAT) and phantom studies (NEMA-IQ and anthropomorphic torso) showed that all four methods were able to generate difference images but their performance on specific metrics varied substantially. Image subtraction had the best quantitative performance (activity recovery coefficient) but had the worst visual quality (contrast-to-noise ratio) due to high noise levels. Projection subtraction showed a slightly better visual quality than image subtraction, but also a slightly worse quantitative accuracy. Projection addition had a substantial bias in its quantitative accuracy which increased with less counts in the projections. Image addition resulted in the best visual image quality but had a quantitative bias when the two images to subtract contained opposing features.
conclusionAll four investigated methods of SPECT subtraction demonstrated the capacity to generate a feasible difference image from two SPECT images. Image subtraction is recommended when the user is only interested in quantitative values, whereas image addition is recommended when the user requires the best visual image quality. Since quantitative accuracy is most important for the dosimetric investigation of AT2 in radioembolization, we recommend using the image subtraction method for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.