ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2024
Can patient-specific acquisition protocol improve performance on defect detection task in myocardial perfusion SPECT?
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), or myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) is a widely used clinical imaging modality for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Current clinical protocols for acquiring and reconstructing MPS images are similar for most patients. However, for patients with outlier anatomical characteristics, such as large breasts, images acquired using conventional protocols are often sub-optimal in quality, leading to degraded diagnostic accuracy. Solutions to improve image quality for these patients outside of increased dose or total acquisition time remain challenging. Thus, there is an important need for new methodologies that can help improve the quality of the acquired images for such patients, in terms of the ability to detect myocardial perfusion defects. One approach to improving this performance is adapting the image acquisition protocol specific to each patient. Studies have shown that in MPS, different projection angles usually contain varying amounts of information for the detection task. However, current clinical protocols spend the same time at each projection angle. In this work, we evaluated whether an acquisition protocol that is optimized for each patient could improve performance on the task of defect detection on reconstructed images for patients with outlier anatomical characteristics. For this study, we first designed and implemented a personalized patient-specific protocol-optimization strategy, which we term precision SPECT (PRESPECT). This strategy integrates the theory of ideal observers with the constraints of tomographic reconstruction to optimize the acquisition time for each projection view, such that performance on the task of detecting myocardial perfusion defects is maximized. We performed a clinically realistic simulation study on patients with outlier anatomies on the task of detecting perfusion defects on various realizations of low-dose scans by an anthropomorphic channelized Hotelling observer. Our results show that using PRESPECT led to improved performance on the defect detection task for the considered patients. These results provide evidence that personalization of MPS acquisition protocol has the potential to improve defect detection performance on reconstructed images by anthropomorphic observers for patients with outlier anatomical characteristics. Thus, our findings motivate further research to design optimal patient-specific acquisition and reconstruction protocols for MPS, as well as developing similar approaches for other medical imaging modalities.
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.