Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportInstrumentation & Data Analysis

Low dose breast imaging-comparative performance of MBI and BSGI systems

Zaiyang Long, Carrie Hruska and Michael O'Connor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1863;
Zaiyang Long
1Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carrie Hruska
1Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael O'Connor
1Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

1863

Objectives To compare the relative performance of a breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI) system and a molecular breast imaging (MBI) system for low dose imaging

Methods The BSGI system comprised a single-head multi-crystal NaI system (pixel size 3.2×3.2 mm) equipped with a hexagonal-hole (HH) lead collimator. The MBI system comprised a dual-head cadmium zinc telluride solid state detector system (pixel size 1.6×1.6 mm) equipped with either conventional HH lead collimators or registered tungsten (RT) collimators. System sensitivity, uniformity, energy and spatial resolution were measured using standard NEMA methods. A 6-cm thick contrast detail (CD) phantom with 48 hot spots (3-10 mm diameter) was used to assess contrast-noise-ratio (CNR) using background count densities equivalent to those observed in clinical studies at doses of 4mCi and 20mCi Tc-99m sestamibi

Results The BSGI and MBI systems had integral uniformities of 6.5% and 3.2% respectively. Significant energy peak drift with count rates above 5 kcps was observed with BSGI. Energy resolution for Tc-99m was 14.2% and 4.4% for the BSGI and MBI systems respectively. System sensitivity was 390 (BSGI), 334 (MBI-HH) and 968 cpm/uCi (MBI-RT). MBI was configured with RT collimators and energy window 110-154 keV for clinical studies. Sensitivity of the MBI-RT was 1216 cpm/uCi for the clinical setting. At distances of 1, 3 and 5 cm, resolution was measured at 4.1, 5.2 and 6.3 mm on the BSGI system and 3.8, 4.8 and 7.9 mm on the MBI-RT system. However with dual head, effective resolution at 5 cm dropped back to 3.8 mm on MBI-RT. Using the Rose criterion for lesion detection (CNR>3) results from the CD phantom revealed that for the BSGI system, 9 hot spots at 4mCi and 5 at 20mCi were undetectable. For the MBI-RT system, 5 hot spots at 4mCi and 3 at 20mCi were undetectable

Conclusions Over the range 0-6 cm, the MBI-RT system demonstrated comparable or better spatial resolution than BSGI while yielding a 3-fold greater sensitivity. This resulted in improved lesion detection at all doses and allows MBI to be utilized at significantly lower doses than BSGI

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 56, Issue supplement 3
May 1, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Low dose breast imaging-comparative performance of MBI and BSGI systems
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Low dose breast imaging-comparative performance of MBI and BSGI systems
Zaiyang Long, Carrie Hruska, Michael O'Connor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1863;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Low dose breast imaging-comparative performance of MBI and BSGI systems
Zaiyang Long, Carrie Hruska, Michael O'Connor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1863;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Instrumentation & Data Analysis

  • Accuracy of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT absorbed dose estimation by reducing the imaging points
  • Assessment of AI-Enhanced Quantitative Volumetric MRI with Semi-Quantitative Analysis in 18F-FDG Metabolic Imaging for Alzheimer's Diagnosis.
  • Assessment of SUV consistency in PET/CT with annulus 68Ge DQA phantom
Show more Instrumentation & Data Analysis

MTA II: Instrumentation Posters

  • Developing freehand PET - status and challenges
  • Experimental model validation for x-ray induced luminescence imaging in tissue phantoms with europium-doped nanophosphors
  • Dedicated cardiac SPECT imaging with multi-pinhole collimators on a clinical scanner
Show more MTA II: Instrumentation Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire