title: Compared performance of high-sensitivity cameras dedicated to myocardial perfusion SPECT: a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human images.
abstract: Differences in the performance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras or collimation systems that have recently been commercialized for myocardial SPECT remain unclear. In the present study, the performance of 3 of these systems was compared by a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human SPECT images.
  
  
  METHODS
  We evaluated the Discovery NM 530c and DSPECT CZT cameras, as well as the Symbia Anger camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ x SPECT) or parallel-hole (conventional SPECT) collimator. Physical performance was compared on reconstructed SPECT images from a phantom and from comparable groups of healthy subjects.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Classifications were as follows, in order of performance. For count sensitivity on cardiac phantom images (counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1)), DSPECT had a sensitivity of 850; Discovery NM 530c, 460; IQ x SPECT, 390; and conventional SPECT, 130. This classification was similar to that of myocardial counts normalized to injected activities from human images (respective mean values, in counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1): 11.4 ± 2.6, 5.6 ± 1.4, 2.7 ± 0.7, and 0.6 ± 0.1). For central spatial resolution: Discovery NM 530c was 6.7 mm; DSPECT, 8.6 mm; IQ x SPECT, 15.0 mm; and conventional SPECT, 15.3 mm, also in accordance with the analysis of the sharpness of myocardial contours on human images (in cm(-1): 1.02 ± 0.17, 0.92 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.12, and 0.65 ± 0.06, respectively). For contrast-to-noise ratio on the phantom: Discovery NM 530c had a ratio of 4.6; DSPECT, 4.1; IQ x SPECT, 3.9; and conventional SPECT, 3.5, similar to ratios documented on human images (5.2 ± 1.0, 4.5 ± 0.5, 3.9 ± 0.6, and 3.4 ± 0.3, respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The performance of CZT cameras is dramatically higher than that of Anger cameras, even for human SPECT images. However, CZT cameras differ in that spatial resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio are better with the Discovery NM 530c, whereas count sensitivity is markedly higher with the DSPECT.
authors.affiliation: CRAN-UMR 7039, Université de Lorraine-CNRS, Vandoeuvre, France. l.imbert@nancy.unicancer.fr
authors.forename: Laetitia
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Imbert
authors.forename: Sylvain
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Poussier
authors.forename: Philippe R
authors.initials: PR
authors.lastname: Franken
authors.forename: Bernard
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Songy
authors.forename: Antoine
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Verger
authors.forename: Olivier
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Morel
authors.forename: Didier
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wolf
authors.forename: Alain
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Noel
authors.forename: Gilles
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Karcher
authors.forename: Pierre-Yves
authors.initials: PY
authors.lastname: Marie
mesh_terms: D015902:Gamma Cameras; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D055414:Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015899:Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon / Q000295:instrumentation*