Accuracy of Visual Scoring and Semi-Quantification of Ultrasound Strain Elastography – A Phantom Study

Abstract As chest x rays involve risks of patients falling, radiologic technologists (technologists) commonly assist patients, and as the assistance takes place near the patients, the eye lenses of the technologists are exposed to radiation. The recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection suggest that the risk of developing cataracts due to lens exposure is high, and this makes it necessary to reduce and minimize the exposure. The present study investigated the positions of technologists assisting patients that will minimize exposure of the eye lens to radiation. The results showed that it is possible to reduce the exposure by assisting from the following positions: 50% at the sides rather than diagonally behind, 10% at the right side of the patient rather than the left and 40% at 250 mm away from the patient. The maximum reduction with radiation protection glasses was 54% with 0.07 mmPb and 72% with 0.88 mmPb.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of image quality at the detector’s edge of dedicated breast positron emission tomography

EJNMMI Physics ◽

10.1186/s40658-020-00351-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yoko Satoh ◽

Utaroh Motosugi ◽

Masamichi Imai ◽

Yoshie Omiya ◽

Hiroshi Onishi

Keyword(s):

Image Quality ◽

Chest Wall ◽

Clinical Studies ◽

Breast Imaging ◽

Phantom Study ◽

Breast Lesions ◽

Clinical Images ◽

Dedicated Breast Pet ◽

Pet Ct ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Using phantoms and clinical studies in prone hanging breast imaging, we assessed the image quality of a commercially available dedicated breast PET (dbPET) at the detector’s edge, where mammary glands near the chest wall are located. These are compared to supine PET/CT breast images of the same clinical subjects. Methods A breast phantom with four spheres (16-, 10-, 7.5-, and 5-mm diameter) was filled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution (sphere-to-background activity concentration ratio, 8:1). The spheres occupied five different positions from the top edge to the centre of the detector and were scanned for 5 min in each position. Reconstructed images were visually evaluated, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for all spheres, and coefficient of variation of the background (CVB) were calculated. Subsequently, clinical images obtained with standard supine PET/CT and prone dbPET were retrospectively analysed. Tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) between breast cancer near the chest wall (close to the detector’s edge; peripheral group) and at other locations (non-peripheral group) were compared. The TBR of each lesion was compared between dbPET and PET/CT. Results Closer to the detector’s edge, the CNR and CRC of all spheres decreased while the CVB increased in the phantom study. The disadvantages of this placement were visually confirmed. Regarding clinical images, TBR of dbPET was significantly higher than that of PET/CT in both the peripheral (12.38 ± 6.41 vs 6.73 ± 3.5, p = 0.0006) and non-peripheral (12.44 ± 5.94 vs 7.71 ± 7.1, p = 0.0183) groups. There was no significant difference in TBR of dbPET between the peripheral and non-peripheral groups. Conclusion The phantom study revealed poorer image quality at < 2-cm distance from the detector’s edge than at other more central parts. In clinical studies, however, the visibility of breast lesions with dbPET was the same regardless of the lesion position, and it was higher than that in PET/CT. dbPET has a great potential for detecting breast lesions near the chest wall if they are at least 2 cm from the edge of the FOV, even in young women with small breasts.

Download Full-text