TY - JOUR T1 - Impact of SwiftScan technique on quantitative bone single photon emission computed tomography JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO - J Nucl Med SP - 3035 LP - 3035 VL - 62 IS - supplement 1 AU - Takuro Shiiba AU - Shinji Tateoka AU - Nobutaka Shinohara AU - Yuuki Inoue AU - Yasuyoshi Kuroiwa AU - Yuya Sekikawa AU - Takashi Tanaka AU - Yasushi Kihara AU - Takuroh Imamura Y1 - 2021/05/01 UR - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/62/supplement_1/3035.abstract N2 - 3035Objectives: Acquisition methods such as the step and shoot mode (SSM) and continuous mode (CM) are commonly used for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). SwiftScan (GE Healthcare) is a recently developed scanning technique with data acquisition during detector static and rotation. The influence of image quality using SSM and CM in bone SPECT has been investigated, but the effect of SwiftScan on quantitative bone SPECT remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the effect of SwiftScan on the image quality and quantitative value of bone SPECT in comparison with SSM and CM.Methods: The phantom SPECT image acquisitions were performed using Discovery NM/CT 860 (GE Healthcare) with low-energy high-resolution and sensitivity collimator. Main and sub-energy window acquisitions were 140 keV ± 10% and 120 keV ± 5%, respectively. The phantom was SIM2 Bone Phantom (Kyoto Kagaku). The vertebra tumor area and normal area of the phantom filled with 99 mTc were 300 kBq/mL and 50 kBq/mL, respectively. Each SPECT acquisition time was approximately 30 minutes per bed. All acquired images were reconstructed using a three-dimensional iterative ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm considering the attenuation correction, scatter correction, and resolution recovery (10 iterations of 4 subsets, no post-filter, matrix size of 128 × 128, pixel size of 4.42 × 4.42 mm). SPECT images from each acquisition method were compared in terms of background variability, tumor-background ratio (TBR), contrast, and recovery coefficient (RC).Results: The results of analysis of SSM, CM, and SwiftScan were as follows: background variability, 10.8%, 13.3%, and 10.5%; TBR, 2.57, 2.59, and 2.56; contrast, 31.4%, 31.9%, and 31.2%; and RC, 60.6%, 46.7%, and 63.5% in 13 mm sphere and 72.6%, 69.4%, and 75.5% in 17 mm sphere, respectively. SwiftScan was superior to SSM and CM in terms of background variability and quantification.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that SwiftScan SPECT has more accurate quantitative results than SSM and CM, thus indicating its high potential to provide valuable information for the diagnosis of bone metastasis. ER -