JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

First published online July 13, 2007, 10.2967/jnumed.106.038232
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JNM
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chen, G. P.
Right arrow Articles by Caldwell, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chen, G. P.
Right arrow Articles by Caldwell, J. H.

Effect of Reconstruction Algorithms on Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement with 13N-Ammonia PET

Grace P. Chen1, Kelley R. Branch1, Adam M. Alessio2, Pam Pham2, Ramin Tabibiazar3, Paul Kinahan2 and James H. Caldwell1,2

1 Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; 2 Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and 3 Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California


Figure 1
View larger version (61K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.  Short-axis images reconstructed using FBP and OSEM with 28 subsets and either 2 or 6 iterations. Of interest is anterior–septal defect on 2-iteration image set that is not present on FBP or 6-iteration OSEM images.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.  (A) Comparison of rest MBF by each OSEM iteration (OSEM2, OSEM6, and OSEM8) with MBF by FBP reconstruction. Correlations were highly significant for each method as shown by r2 values. However, at higher flows, OSEM2 consistently underestimated MBF compared with OSEM6 and OSEM8. (B) The same comparisons are made for stress MBF for OSEM6 and OSEM8, with even higher correlations and less variability.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.  Mean ± SD of rest and stress MBF by each of reconstruction methods is shown. There is a slight, but statistically insignificant, tendency for MBF to be lower with OSEM6 and OSEM8 iterations. For OSEM2 at rest, MBF was significantly lower.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.  Effect of increasing filter function with OSEM reconstruction at a constant number of iterations (n = 8) is to decrease mean MBF compared with FBP. This was statistically significant only at a filter function of 15 (ps15) at rest whereas, for stress MBF, this occurred at filter functions of 10 (ps10) and 15 (ps15).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (71K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.  Polar plots of NH3 activity (cpm/voxel) with different reconstruction methods for a single patient. Activity in each of 128 myocardial ROIs (8 sectors as shown by numbers on images and 16 slices) has been normalized to the maximal ROI in the respective plot and shown as an inverted gray scale 9 (shown in color bar). Location of maximal count region varies considerably between FBP and OSEM plots, particularly comparing FBP and OSEM2.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.