Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and lesion detection capability between a digital and an analog PET/CT system in oncological patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred oncological patients (62 men, 38 women; mean age of 65 ± 12 years) were prospectively included from January-June 2018. All patients, who accepted to be scanned by two systems, consecutively underwent a single day, dual imaging protocol (digital and analog PET/CT). Three nuclear medicine physicians evaluated image quality using a 4-point scale (-1, poor; 0, fair; 1, good; 2, excellent) and detection capability by counting the number of lesions with increased radiotracer uptake. Differences were considered significant for a p value <0.05. RESULTS: Improved image quality in the digital over the analog system was observed in 54% of the patients (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 44.2-63.5). The percentage of interrater concordance in lesion detection capability between the digital and analog systems was 97%, with an interrater measure agreement of κ = 0.901 (p < 0.0001). Although there was no significant difference in the total number of lesions detected by the two systems (digital: 5.03 ± 10.6 vs. analog: 4.53 ± 10.29; p = 0.7), the digital system detected more lesions in 22 of 83 of PET+ patients (26.5%) (p = 0.05, 95% CI, 17.9-36.7). In these 22 patients, all lesions detected by the digital PET/CT (and not by the analog PET/CT) were < 10 mm. CONCLUSION: Digital PET/CT offers improved image quality and lesion detection capability over the analog PET/CT in oncological patients, and even better for sub-centimeter lesions.

[Optimization of radiological scoliosis assessment]. / Optimización del estudio radiológico de la escoliosis.

Most scoliosis are idiopathic (80%) and occur more frequently in adolescent girls. Plain radiography is the imaging method of choice, both for the initial study and follow-up studies but has the disadvantage of using ionizing radiation. The breasts are exposed to x-ray along these repeated examinations. The authors present a range of recommendations in order to optimize radiographic exam technique for both conventional and digital x-ray settings to prevent unnecessary patients' radiation exposure and to reduce the risk of breast cancer in patients with scoliosis. With analogue systems, leaded breast protectors should always be used, and with any radiographic equipment, analog or digital radiography, the examination should be performed in postero-anterior projection and optimized low-dose techniques. The ALARA (as low as reasonable achievable) rule should always be followed to achieve diagnostic quality images with the lowest feasible dose.

Optimización del estudio radiológico de la escoliosis / Optimization of radiological scoliosis assessment

La mayoría de las escoliosis son idiopáticas (80%) y ocurren más frecuentemente en adolescentes y en el sexo femenino. La radiografía simple es el método de imagen de elección, tanto en el estudio inicial como en el seguimiento evolutivo, pero tiene el inconveniente de utilizar radiaciones ionizantes. Las mamas quedan en el campo de exposición durante estos estudios repetidos. Los autores presentan una serie de recomendaciones para optimizar la técnica de las exploraciones y los equipos radiográficos, tanto analógicos como digitales, para evitar dosis de irradiación innecesarias a los pacientes y reducir el riesgo de cáncer de mama en los pacientes con escoliosis. Cuando se utilizan equipos analógicos siempre debe utilizarse protector mamario plomado y, en todos los equipos, sean analógicos o digitales, hay que realizar la radiografía en proyección posteroanterior y con técnicas optimizadas de baja dosis. Hay que seguir siempre el principio ALARA (as low as reasonable achievable) para obtener imágenes diagnósticas de calidad con la dosis lo más baja posible (AU)

Most scoliosis are idiopathic (80%) and occur more frequently in adolescent girls. Plain radiography is the imaging method of choice, both for the initial study and follow-up studies but has the disadvantage of using ionizing radiation. The breasts are exposed to x-ray along these repeated examinations. The authors present a range of recommendations in order to optimize radiographic exam technique for both conventional and digital x-ray settings to prevent unnecessary patients' radiation exposure and to reduce the risk of breast cancer in patients with scoliosis. With analogue systems, leaded breast protectors should always be used, and with any radiographic equipment, analog or digital radiography, the examination should be performed in postero-anterior projection and optimized low-dose techniques. The ALARA (as low as reasonable achievable) rule should always be followed to achieve diagnostic quality images with the lowest feasible dose (AU)

3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification.

PURPOSE: To evaluate methods of pretreatment IMRT analysis, using real measurements performed with a commercial 2D detector array, for clinical relevance and accuracy by comparing clinical DVH parameters. METHODS: We divided the work into two parts. The first part consisted of six in-phantom tests aimed to study the sensitivity of the different analysis methods. Beam fluences, 3D dose distribution, and DVH of an unaltered original plan were compared to those of the delivered plan, in which an error had been intentionally introduced. The second part consisted of comparing gamma analysis with DVH metrics for 17 patient plans from various sites. Beam fluences were measured with the MapCHECK 2 detector, per-beam planar analysis was performed with the MapCHECK software, and 3D gamma analysis and the DVH evaluation were performed using 3DVH software. RESULTS: In a per-beam gamma analysis some of the tests yielded false positives or false negatives. However, the 3DVH software correctly described the DVH of the plan which included the error. The measured DVH from the plan with controlled error agreed with the planned DVH within 2% dose or 2% volume. We also found that a gamma criterion of 3%∕3 mm was too lax to detect some of the forced errors. Global analysis masked some problems, while local analysis magnified irrelevant errors at low doses. Small hotspots were missed for all metrics due to the spatial resolution of the detector panel. DVH analysis for patient plans revealed small differences between treatment plan calculations and 3DVH results, with the exception of very small volume structures such as the eyes and the lenses. Target coverage (D(98) and D(95)) of the measured plan was systematically lower than that predicted by the treatment planning system, while other DVH characteristics varied depending on the parameter and organ. CONCLUSIONS: We found no correlation between the gamma index and the clinical impact of a discrepancy for any of the gamma index evaluation possibilities (global, local, 2D, or 3D). Some of the tests yielded false positives or false negatives in a per-beam gamma analysis. However, they were correctly accounted for in a DVH analysis. We also showed that 3DVH software is reliable for our tests, and is a viable method for correlating planar discrepancies with clinical relevance by comparing the measured DVH of target and OAR's with clinical tolerance.