Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Mohd Rohani MF, Zanial AZ, Suppiah S, Phay Phay K, Mohamed Aslum Khan F, Mohamad Najib FH, et al.
    Nucl Med Commun, 2021 Jan;42(1):9-20.
    PMID: 33165258 DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001306
    Skeletal whole-body scintigraphy (WBS), although widely used as a sensitive tool for detecting metastatic bone disease in oncology cases, has relatively low specificity. Indeterminate bone lesions (IBLs) detected by WBS cause a diagnostic dilemma, which hampers further management plans. In the advent of hybrid imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) has been gaining popularity as a tool to improve the characterisation of IBLs detected by WBS. As yet, there has not been a systematic review to objectively evaluate the diagnostic capabilities of SPECT/CT in this area. We conducted a systematic review of relevant electronic databases up to 30 August 2020. The outcomes of interest were the reporting of SPECT/CT to identify benign and malignant IBLs and the calculation of the sensitivity and specificity of the index test, based on histopathological examination or clinical and imaging follow-up as the reference standard. After the risk of bias and eligibility assessment, 12 articles were identified and synthesised in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of SPECT/CT for diagnosing IBLs are 93.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95] and 96.0% (95% CI 0.94-0.97), respectively. There was heterogeneity of the articles due to variable imaging protocols, duration of follow-up and scoring methods for interpreting the SPECT/CT results. The heterogeneity poses a challenge for accurate interpretation of the true diagnostic capability of SPECT/CT. In conclusion, targeted SPECT/CT improves the specificity of diagnosing bone metastases, but efforts need to be made to standardise the thresholds for SPECT/CT, methodology, as well as harmonising the reporting and interpretation criteria. We also make some recommendations for future works.
    Matched MeSH terms: Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography/methods*
  2. Masoomi MA, Al-Shammeri I, Kalafallah K, Elrahman HMA, Ragab O, Ahmed E, et al.
    Medicine (Baltimore), 2019 Jan;98(4):e14207.
    PMID: 30681596 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014207
    Many discrepancy in selection of proper filter and its parameters for individual cases exists. The authors investigate the impact of the most common filters on patient NM images with coronary artery disease (CAD), and compare the results with the computerized tomography (CT)-Angio and angiography for accuracy.The investigation initiated by performing various single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT)/CT scan of the national electrical manufacturers association chest phantoms having hot and cold inserts. Data acquired on GE 670 PRO SPECT/CT; 360Ø, 64 frames, 60 seconds, low energy high resolution (LEHR) 128, low energy general purpose (LEGP) with CT attenuation (120 kV and 170 mA). The images reconstructed with filtered back projection and ITERATIVE ordered-subset expectation maximization utilizing filters; Hann, Butterworth, Metz, Hamming, and Wiener. The Image contrast was calculated to assess absolute nearness of the inserts. Based on the preliminary results, then scans of 92 patients with CAD; 64 males and 28 females, age 41 to 77 years old, who had been reported earlier reprocessed with the nominated filter and were reported by 2 NM expert. The results compared to the earlier reports and to the CT-Angio and angiography.The optimization suggested 3 filters; Wiener (Wi), Metz and Butterworth (But) provide the highest contrast (99- 66.4%) and (81- 32%) for the cold and hot inserts respectively, with the (Wi) filter to be the better option. The reprocessed patients scan with the (Wi) presented an elevated diagnostic accuracy, correlated well with the CT-Angio and angiography results (P 
    Matched MeSH terms: Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography/methods
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links