Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2025; 24(01): 047-056
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1795102
Original Article

Comparative Assessment of Agreement in Uniformity Analyses across Quality Control Software Platforms

Thasmeera T. Supramaniam
1   School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Muhammad Y. Udin
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Radiotherapy and Oncology, Hospital Pakar Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Marianie Musarudin 
1   School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective In nuclear medicine, quality control (QC) activities adhere to international standards, yet their complexity can pose challenges. Gamma camera manufacturers have introduced integrated QC software, offering instantaneous results. However, the agreement of these automated processes with established protocols remains uncertain. This study aims to clarify this uncertainty by comparatively analyzing uniformity from various software solutions for a dual-head gamma camera.

Methods The study utilized integrated QC analysis software and three free QC analysis tools (IAEA-NMQC Toolkit, NM Toolkit, and Fiji) for uniformity analyses. Following the National Electrical Manufacturers Association standards, NEMA Standards Publication NU 1-2018, the intrinsic uniformity test was performed on a GE Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro system. Ten uniformity QC images underwent analysis with both integrated QC software and alternative software. Data agreements were tested using the Blant–Altman regression-based analysis.

Results Significant differences were observed in integral and differential uniformities (p < 0.001). The central field of view (useful field of view) integral uniformity mean differences for NMQC Toolkit, NM Toolkit, and Fiji were 2.46% (2.34%), 2.44% (2.31%), and 2.56% (2.64%), respectively. Conversely, x-differential and y-differential uniformity mean differences were consistently under 2%. Regression-based analysis confirmed good agreement between computed values.

Conclusion The integrated QC software of Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro provides reliable uniformity analysis, aligned with the NEMA standards. Variations in computed values may stem from differences in pixel values and applied data corrections.

Keywords

uniformity - ImageJ - NMQC Toolkit - NM Toolkit - SPECT


Publication History

Article published online:
19 November 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Zhang R, Wang M, Zhou Y. et al. Impacts of acquisition and reconstruction parameters on the absolute technetium quantification of the cadmium-zinc-telluride-based SPECT/CT system: a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys 2021; 8 (01) 66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Abdelhalim MAK, Rizk RAM, Farag HI, Reda SM. Effect of energy window width on planer and SPECT image uniformity. J King Saud Univ Sci 2009; 21 (02) 145-150
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Seret A, Bleeser F. Intrinsic uniformity requirements for pinhole SPECT. J Nucl Med Technol 2006; 34 (01) 43-47
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Mezzenga E, Sarnelli A, Bellomo G, DiFilippo FP, Palestro CJ, Nichols KJ. Quantification of SPECT concentric ring artifacts by radiomics and radial features. Appl Sci 2022; 12 (05) 2726
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Leong LK, Kruger RL, O'Connor MK. A comparison of the uniformity requirements for SPECT image reconstruction using FBP and OSEM techniques. J Nucl Med Technol 2001; 29 (02) 79-83
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Saha GB. Physics and Radiobiology of Nuclear Medicine. 4th ed.. New York, NY: Springer; 2013
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Quality Control Atlas for Scintillation Camera Systems. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lopez BP, Jordan DW, Kemp BJ, Kinahan PE, Schmidtlein CR, Mawlawi OR. PET/CT acceptance testing and quality assurance: executive summary of AAPM Task Group 126 Report. Med Phys 2021; 48 (02) e31-e35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pandey AK, Sharma PD, Kumar JP. et al. Calculating gamma camera uniformity parameters: beyond the vendor-specific protocol. Indian J Nucl Med 2017; 32 (04) 279-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schunn CD, Trafton JG. The psychology of uncertainty in scientific data analysis. In: Feist G, Gorman M. eds. The Handbook of the Psychology of Science. New York, NY: Springer; 2013: 461-483
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research Methods in Education. 8th ed.. London: Routledge; 2018
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Edam AN, Fornasier MR, De Denaro M, Sulieman A, Alkhorayef M, Bradley DA. Quality control in dual head gamma-cameras: comparison between methods and software used for image analysis. Appl Radiat Isot 2018; 141: 288-291
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ziada G, Yousef Z, Abdel-Azzem A. A comparison between two methods of performing the daily intrinsic uniformity quality control test for gamma camera. Egypt J Nucl Med 2010; 2 (01) 40-54
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Vickery A, Jørgensen T, de Nijs R. NEMA NU-1 2007 based and independent quality control software for gamma cameras and SPECT. J Phys: Conf Ser 2011; 317: 12023
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Islam K, Siraj MS, Zaneb H, Sohail A, Saif-ul-Haque, Qureshy A. Assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic uniformity for dual head SPECT gamma camera. J Med Phys Appl Sci 2022; 7 (5:23): 1-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rova A, Celler A, Hamarneh G. Development of NEMA-based software for gamma camera quality control. J Digit Imaging 2008; 21 (02) 243-255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Krizsan AK, Kukuts K, Al-Muhanna W. et al. Performance evaluation of a novel multi-pinhole collimator on triple-NaI-detector SPECT/CT for dedicated myocardial imaging. EJNMMI Phys 2023; 10 (01) 24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Valentim FO, Coelho BP, Miot HA. et al. Follicular thyroid lesions: is there a discriminatory potential in the computerized nuclear analysis?. Endocr Connect 2018; 7 (08) 907-913
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hirtl A, Bergmann H, Knäusl B, Beyer T, Figl M, Hummel J. Technical Note: Fully-automated analysis of Jaszczak phantom measurements as part of routine SPECT quality control. Med Phys 2017; 44 (05) 1638-1645
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Sousa CLD, Carolino E, Figueiredo S. Vieira, Imagej's contribution to left ventricular segmentation in myocardial perfusion imaging. Nucl Med Biomed Imaging 2017; 2 (01) 1-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Oktaviana AT, Pawiro SA, Siswatining T, Soejoko DS. Preliminary study of ring artifact detection in SPECT imaging using Jaszczak phantom. J Phys Conf Ser 2019; 1248: 012030
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Bordonne M, Chawki MB, Marie PY. et al. High-quality brain perfusion SPECT images may be achieved with a high-speed recording using 360° CZT camera. EJNMMI Phys 2020; 7 (01) 65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Caobelli F, Kaiser SR, Thackeray JT. et al. IQ SPECT allows a significant reduction in administered dose and acquisition time for myocardial perfusion imaging: evidence from a phantom study. J Nucl Med 2014; 55 (12) 2064-2070
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Rasband W. Image J. National Institutes of Health. Accessed 26 March 2023 at: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/
  • 26 QA Benchmark, LLC. Accessed 26 March 2023 at: http://QABenchmark.com
  • 27 NEMA. NEMA Standards Publication NU 1–2018: Performance Measurements of Gamma Cameras. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2019
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8 (02) 135-160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015; 25 (02) 141-151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Zanzonico P. Routine quality control of clinical nuclear medicine instrumentation: a brief review. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (07) 1114-1131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Prekeges J. Nuclear Medicine Instrumentations. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Bolstad R, Brown J, Grantham V. Extrinsic versus intrinsic uniformity correction for γ-cameras. J Nucl Med Technol 2011; 39 (03) 208-212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Islam K, Murad S, Saif-ul-Haque, Siraj MS, Qureshy A. Acceptance testing and routine testing of dual head SPECT gamma camera at a new cancer hospital. J Med Phys Appl Sci 2022; 7 (05) 22
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Hoffman JI. Biostatistics for Medical and Biomedical Practitioners. 2nd ed.. London: Academic Press; 2019
    Search in Google Scholar