Dose estimation in patients from different protocols of 18F-FDG PET/CT studies and analysis of optimization strategies.

This study aimed to evaluate the dose in different protocols of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) procedure. The retrospective study involves 207 patients with confirmed malignancies who underwent PET/CT. Effective dose (E) from PET was estimated based on injected activity and dose coefficient as per International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 128. Estimation of E from CT was done utilizing the dose length product (DLP) method and conversion factors as per ICRP 102. There was a significant statistical difference observed in E between different PET/CT protocols (P < .001). E of PET in the whole body (WB) was found to be 4.9 ± 0.9 mSv, whereas mean volume computed tomography dose indexvol, DLP, and E of CT in WB were 7.0 ± 0.2 mGy, 674.3 ± 80.7 mGy.cm, and 10.1 ± 1.2 mSv, respectively. No linear correlation was seen between the size-specific dose estimate and E of CT (r = -0.003; P = .978). The total mean E in WB PET/CT was 17.0 ± 1.7 mSv. CT dose was contributing more than PET dose in all protocols except brain PET/CT. Optimization strategies can be evaluated only if monitored periodically.

Analysis of image quality by regulating beta function of BSREM reconstruction algorithm and comparison with conventional reconstructions in carcinoma breast studies of PET CT with BGO detector.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate the beta penalization factor of the BSREM reconstruction algorithm on a five-ring BGO-based PET CT system and compared it with conventional reconstructions. METHODS: Retrospective study involves 30 breast cancer patient data of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) PET CT for reconstruction with OSEM, OSEM + PSF, and BSREM under variable ß factors ranging from 200 to 600 in the steps of 50. Liver noise, lesion SUVmax, SBR, and SNR for each reconstruction were calculated. Quantitative parameters of each beta factor of BSREM were compared with OSEM and OSEM + PSF, using the Wilcoxon sign rank test with Bonferroni correction, a value of P < 0.002 was considered statistically significant. Visual scoring by two readers was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty lesions of mean size 1.91 ± 0.58 cm range (0.7-3.6 cm) were identified. Liver noise and SBR were reduced, whereas SNR was increased with an increasing ß value of BSREM. In comparison with OSEM, liver noise was not significantly different from ß200 and ß250. SNR of OSEM was significantly lower than any other ß factors and SBR of ß factor less than 500 was significantly higher than OSEM. In comparison with OSEM + PSF, liver noise was not significantly different from ß400 and ß350-500 do not show a significant difference in SNR and SBR compared with OSEM + PSF. ß350 scored highest under visual scoring with a moderate agreement. CONCLUSION: The study quantitatively indicates the optimum beta range of ß250-450 and the qualitative evaluation indicates that ß350 is an optimum beta factor of BSREM in breast cancer cases for 18 F-FDG WB-PET CT.