MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores
Journal Article

Comparison of attenuation, dual-energy-window, and model-based scatter correction of low-count SPECT to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT quantified myocardial perfusion scores

2013
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
New reconstruction algorithms allow reduction in acquisition times or the amount of injected radioactivity. We examined the impact of different corrections on low-count clinical SPECT myocardial perfusion images (MPI) and compared to ^sup 82^Rb PET/CT. We compared no corrections (NC) to attenuation correction (AC) with and without scatter correction by either a dual-energy-window (AC-DEW) or model-based (AC-ESSE) approach. All reconstructions included resolution recovery. 56 Patients were imaged using a standard rest/stress Tc-99m-tetrofosmin MPI SPECT/CT protocol with an additional half-time acquisition. A ^sup 82^Rb-rest/stress PET/CT MPI was acquired within 4 weeks. Reconstruction methods were compared using summed rest/stress/difference scores from an objective algorithm (SRS/SSS/SDS). The SRS and SSS for NC were significantly (P < .01) higher than for AC, but well correlated (r >= 0.87). The correlation in SRS/SSS among AC, AC-DEW, and AC-ESSE was excellent (r >= 0.98). AC-ESSE and AC-DEW had higher SRS (P <= .05) than AC, but the SDS values were not significantly different. Concordance with PET normal/abnormal classification was 76% for NC and >=85% for the AC methods. AC significantly improves the accuracy of low-count myocardial perfusion SPECT half-time imaging for the detection of disease compared to NC. Compared to PET, there was no significant difference among AC, AC-DEW, and AC-ESSE.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V

MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks