The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR) · 2001
Local detection of prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 2-fluorodeoxyglucose: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation correction.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turlakow A, Larson S M, Coakley F, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Macapinlac H A, Kelly W, Leibel S, Humm J, Scardino P, Scher H, Hricak H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation correction (IRSAC) in the local imaging of prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 2-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET).
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 13 patients with primary (n=7) or recurrent (n=6) prostate cancer who had increased uptake in the prostate on FDG-PET performed without urinary catheterization, contemporaneous biopsy confirming the presence of active tumor in the prostate, and correlative cross-sectional imaging by MRI (n=8) or CT (n=5). FDG-PET images were reconstructed by FBP and IRSAC. Two independent nuclear medicine physicians separately rated FBP and IRSAC images for visualization of prostatic activity on a 4-point scale. Results were compared using biopsy and cross-sectional imaging findings as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: IRSAC images were significantly better that FBP in terms of visualization of prostatic activity in 12 of 13 patients, and were equivalent in 1 patient (p<0.001, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). In particular, 2 foci of tumor activity in 2 different patients seen on IRSAC images were not visible on FBP images. In 11 patients who had a gross tumor mass evident on cross-sectional imaging, there was good agreement between PET and cross-sectional anatomic imaging with respect to tumor localization.
CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, cancer can be imaged within the prostate using FDG-PET, and IRSAC is superior to FBP in image reconstruction for local tumor visualization.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 13 patients with primary (n=7) or recurrent (n=6) prostate cancer who had increased uptake in the prostate on FDG-PET performed without urinary catheterization, contemporaneous biopsy confirming the presence of active tumor in the prostate, and correlative cross-sectional imaging by MRI (n=8) or CT (n=5). FDG-PET images were reconstructed by FBP and IRSAC. Two independent nuclear medicine physicians separately rated FBP and IRSAC images for visualization of prostatic activity on a 4-point scale. Results were compared using biopsy and cross-sectional imaging findings as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: IRSAC images were significantly better that FBP in terms of visualization of prostatic activity in 12 of 13 patients, and were equivalent in 1 patient (p<0.001, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). In particular, 2 foci of tumor activity in 2 different patients seen on IRSAC images were not visible on FBP images. In 11 patients who had a gross tumor mass evident on cross-sectional imaging, there was good agreement between PET and cross-sectional anatomic imaging with respect to tumor localization.
CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, cancer can be imaged within the prostate using FDG-PET, and IRSAC is superior to FBP in image reconstruction for local tumor visualization.