000 03736cam a2200349 a 4500
003 EG-GiCUC
005 20250223031941.0
008 180310s2017 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d
040 _aEG-GiCUC
_beng
_cEG-GiCUC
041 0 _aeng
049 _aDeposite
097 _aM.Sc
099 _aCai01.12.04.M.Sc.2017.Yo.C
100 0 _aYoussef Rabie Ahmed
245 1 0 _aComparative study between the new 3-D iterative reconstruction algorithm and the standard reconstruction algorithm in Gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging /
_cYoussef Rabie Ahmed ; Supervised Ahmed Sultan , Alia Abdelfattah , Shaaban Abdelhamid
246 1 5 _aالمقارنه بين الطزق اللوغارتمية التكرارية ثلاثيه الأبعاد والطرق القياسية في تصوير المسح الذرى علي عضلة القلب
260 _aCairo :
_bYoussef Rabie Ahmed ,
_c2017
300 _a77 P. :
_bcharts , facsimiles ;
_c25cm
502 _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of science - Department of Biophysics
520 _aBackground: Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) using 99mTc-labeled sesta MIBI is used in various clinical settings to provide invaluable information about coronary artery disease. Image reconstruction algorithm such as filtered-back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstructions (2D and 3D) with resolution recovery are playing a pivotal role in image quality evaluation of (MPI). Aims: The aim of the present study was to provide a comparative analysis among the three reconstruction algorithms FBP, 2D ordered subset expectation maximization (2D-OSEM) and 3D-OSEM (Flash-3D) with resolution recovery provided by system manufacturer in evaluating image quality of gated MPI Materials and Methods: The patient population was divided into three groups such that the first group (gp1) received the full standard dose and scanned using the adopted acquisition protocol routinely used in our clinic (32 views, 20 sec/view, 64x64 matrix size, using 925 MBq administered activity), group 2 (gp2) in which the acquisition protocol was reduced to 16 views using 20 sec/view, matrix size of 64x64 with injected activity of 925 MBq and the last group (gp3) was examined using the same imaging protocol like group 1 but with half dose (i.e. 444 MBq). All patients acquired data were processed using FBP (Butterworth filter: cut-off=0.5, order=5), OSEM-2D (8 subsets, 12 iterations, FWHM=11 mm) and Flash-3D iterative algorithms (8 subsets, 12 iterations, FWHM=11 mm). Quality of the reconstructed data were evaluated in terms of image contrast, relative noise level as well as contrast to noise ratio. Results: in terms of image noise, Flash-3D reconstruction algorithm increased the image noise (P>0.05) as compared with FBP and OSEM-2D. Also, OSEM-2D iterative algorithm increased the image noise (P>0.05) as compared with FBP. Flash-3D reconstruction algorithm significantly increased the image contrast (P<0.05) as compared with FBP and OSEM-2D. Also, OSEM-2D iterative algorithm significantly increased the image contrast (P<0.05) as compared with FBP. Flash 3D reconstruction algorithm reduced the image CNR by 13.3% (P=NS) than FBP and 4.82% (P=NS) than OSEM2-D respectively. Also, the OSEM-2D reconstruction algorithm decreased the image CNR by 8.1% (P = NS) than FBP
530 _aIssued also as CD
653 4 _a3-D iterative
653 4 _a3-D iterative reconstruction algorithm
653 4 _aSPECT
700 0 _aAhmed Sultan ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aAlia Abdelfattah ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aShaaban Abdelhamid ,
_eSupervisor
856 _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905 _aNazla
_eRevisor
905 _aShimaa
_eCataloger
942 _2ddc
_cTH
999 _c65358
_d65358