Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Summary of past barriers, current opportunities, and remaining challenges in developing SPECT/CT ecosystem, covering clinical, physics/engineering, and radiopharmacy/chemistry fields.
- FIGURE 2.
Total number of PubMed citations per year from 2000 to 2018 as measure of interest. (A) Publications using keyword SPECT/CT for selected subspecialty topics. (B) Publications using keyword SPECT/CT or PET/CT for cardiology.
- FIGURE 3.
Illustration of relative value and confusing nature of terminology such as low-dose or high-dose and nondiagnostic or diagnostic in CT acquisition protocols, assuming that sensitivity is function of image quality and thus absorbed dose. Specific CT acquisition protocol resulting in exposure
can be considered both diagnostic and nondiagnostic depending on condition of interest. Conversely, for condition A (e.g., fracture) low-dose () acquisition settings may result in adequate sensitivity and be considered diagnostic, whereas for condition B (e.g., prosthetic loosening) high-dose () settings are required to obtain same diagnostic threshold. - FIGURE 4.
Summary of approximate time of introduction of milestones in whole-body SPECT/CT technology, showing incorporation of subsequent innovations in CT and SPECT technology. Although some novel CT technologies were quickly incorporated into SPECT/CT systems (e.g., iterative reconstruction), others showed significant delays in their translation into hybrid scanners. For SPECT innovations, it is interesting to note parallel development of dedicated cardiac gantry designs that saw earlier introduction of breakthroughs, such as CZT detectors, compared with whole-body capable devices. DECT = dual-energy CT; IR = iterative reconstruction; MAR = metal artifact reduction.
