English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Using phantoms and clinical studies in prone hanging breast imaging, we assessed the image quality of a commercially available dedicated breast PET (dbPET) at the detector’s edge, where mammary glands near the chest wall are located. These are compared to supine PET/CT breast images of the same clinical subjects.    Methods  A breast phantom with four spheres (16-, 10-, 7.5-, and 5-mm diameter) was filled with  18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background activity concentration ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for all spheres, and coefficient of variation of the background (CV B ) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard supine PET/CT and prone dbPET were retrospectively analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/CT.    Results  Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC of all spheres decreased while the CV B  increased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.38 ± 6.41 vs 6.73 ± 3.5,  p  = 0.0006) and non-peripheral (12.44 ± 5.94 vs 7.71 ± 7.1,  p  = 0.0183) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups.    Conclusion  The phantom study revealed poorer image quality at < 2-cm distance from the detector’s edge than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, the visibility of breast lesions with dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are at least 2 cm from the edge of the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography