MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty mammography patients above 40 years and undergoing EIT were chosen using convenient sampling. Visual interpretation of the images was carried out by a radiologist with minimum of three years experience using the breast imaging - electrical impedance (BI-EIM) classification for detection of abnormalities. A set of thirty blinded EIT images were reinterpreted to determine the intra-rater reliability using kappa. Quantitative assessment was by comparison of the breast average electric conductivity with the norm and correlations with visual interpretation of the images were determined using Chi-square. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean electrical conductivity between groups and t-test was used for comparisons with pre-existing Caucasians statistics. Independent t-tests were applied to compare the mean electrical conductivity of women with factors like exogenous hormone use and family history of breast cancer.
RESULTS: The mean electrical conductivity of Malaysian women was significantly lower than that of Caucasians (p<0.05). Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography was significantly related with visual interpretation of images of the breast (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography images was significantly related with visual interpretation.
METHODS: The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) procedure guidelines version 2.0 for FDG-PET tumor imaging has adhered for this purpose. A NEMA2012/IEC2008 phantom was filled with tumor to background ratio of 10:1 with the activity concentration of 30 kBq/ml ± 10 and 3 kBq/ml ± 10% for each radioisotope. The phantom was scanned using different acquisition times per bed position (1, 5, 7, 10 and 15 min) to determine the Tmin. The definition of Tmin was performed using an image coefficient of variations (COV) of 15%.
RESULTS: Tmin obtained for 18F, 68Ga and 124I were 3.08, 3.24 and 32.93 min, respectively. Quantitative analyses among 18F, 68Ga and 124I images were performed. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast recovery coefficients (CRC), and visibility (VH) are the image quality parameters analysed in this study. Generally, 68Ga and 18F gave better image quality as compared to 124I for all the parameters studied.
CONCLUSION: We have defined Tmin for 18F, 68Ga and 124I SPECT CT imaging based on NEMA2012/IEC2008 phantom imaging. Despite the long scanning time suggested by Tmin, improvement in the image quality is acquired especially for 124I. In clinical practice, the long acquisition time, nevertheless, may cause patient discomfort and motion artifact.