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 Report

Kevin W. Edwards BSRT (N),(R); CNMT (RS),(PET)

Kevin Edwards, Sandy McCord and Lisa States
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 3004;
Kevin Edwards
1The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia PA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandy McCord
1The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia PA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa States
2CHOP/University of Pennsylvania Plymouth Meeting PA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

3004

Introduction: LPHR vs MEGP Collimators for I123 Imaging Evaluation

Objectives: To evaluate image quality of Phantom SPECT studies on an LPHR (Low Penetration High Resolution) collimator vs a MEGP (Medium Energy General Purpose) collimator to determine if there is a substantially equivalent or better scan on either of the collimators.

Methods: Acquisition of the standard Jaszczak Phantom using 5.23 mCi of I123 was obtained on both the LPHR collimators and the MEGP collimators at an acquisition time of 16 minutes, 8 minutes, 4 minutes and 2 minutes. Acquisitions were performed immediately following one another to minimize decay of the radioactivity and any effects it may have on the imaging.

Results: Images were evaluated by a total of 7 nuclear medicine professionals (1 physician and 6 technologists, the technologists experience ranged from 3 years to 36 years. Images were evaluated in terms of best image quality for the varying acquisition times for both sets of reconstructed data (FBP or Filtered Back Projection and Flash3D) and for both sets of collimators LPHR (Low Penetration High Resolution) collimator and MEGP (Medium Energy General Purpose). Images were also reviewed for best display of uniformity, resolution and contrast for the same data points. The results showed that the 16 minute acquisition time was a clear preference in terms of producing a better image. The Flash3D reconstruction was preferred for uniformity evaluation for both sets of collimators. The filtered back projection was preferred for the cold rod and cold sphere reconstructions. Overall the LPHR acquisitions were preferred at a rate of 4 to 2 with one respondent abstaining. The tally’s that do not equal seven respondents were due to respondents leaving blank or determining neither was a clear preference. These preliminary results are promising but additional research is being obtained to include higher count imaging similar to actual patient acquisitions and phantom acquisitions to better replicate ACR standard phantom acquisitions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2020
  • 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.
Kevin W. Edwards BSRT (N),(R); CNMT (RS),(PET)
(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
Kevin W. Edwards BSRT (N),(R); CNMT (RS),(PET)
Kevin Edwards, Sandy McCord, Lisa States
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 3004;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Kevin W. Edwards BSRT (N),(R); CNMT (RS),(PET)
Kevin Edwards, Sandy McCord, Lisa States
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 3004;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Rest Dose Spillover Correction of Stress Blood Flow Measurements in Digital Rb-82 Myocardial Perfusion PET/CT Imaging
  • Radiolabeled hyaluronic acid (HA) fragments for lymphatic imaging
  • Reduction of injected activity for MBF with a CZT Cardiac SPECT Camera
Show more

Tech Papers I: Instrumentation & Data Analysis Technologist Papers

  • Regional SUV quantification in hybrid PET/MR, a comparison of two atlas-based automatic brain segmentation methods
  • Quantitative performance and optimal regularization parameter in block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstructions in carotid plaques with 18F-FDG PET /MR
  • Quantification Evaluation of 99mTc-MDP concentration in the lumbar spine with SPECT/CT: compare with bone mineral density
Show more Tech Papers I: Instrumentation & Data Analysis Technologist Papers

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire