Comparison of planar DMSA scan with an evaluation based on SPECT imaging in the split renal function assessment

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F16%3A10326159" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/16:10326159 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/16:10326159 RIV/00064211:_____/16:N0000011

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://journals.viamedica.pl/nuclear_medicine_review/article/view/NMR.2016.0003/30844" target="_blank" >https://journals.viamedica.pl/nuclear_medicine_review/article/view/NMR.2016.0003/30844</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/NMR.2016.0003" target="_blank" >10.5603/NMR.2016.0003</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of planar DMSA scan with an evaluation based on SPECT imaging in the split renal function assessment

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

BACKGROUND: Validation of the Tc-99m-DMSA planar scintigraphy accuracy for split renal function assessment and comparison with evaluation based on SPECT imaging both with and without CT attenuation correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For split renal function assessment two methods were used: A) planar scintigraphy based on anterior and posterior projections using correction for kidney depth calculated by the geometric mean; B) semi-quantitative evaluation based on SPECT (B1) and attenuation-corrected SPECT/CT (B2) images using locally developed software for kidney segmentation and voxel-based analysis. All three methods were performed with a phantom simulating body including pair of kidneys. For patient study methods A and B1 were applied on a group of 140 children and adolescents with various renal diseases. Renal function ratios were compared both mutually and with physically measured activity ratios in the phantom. RESULTS: Method A provided results which were closest to measured reference values (average absolute difference of 0.9 percentage points [pp]). Method B1 was noticeably worse (2.1pp), whereas attenuation correction (B2) improved tomography results considerably (1.3 pp). The superiority of planar imaging could be caused among others by differences in creation of planar range of interest compared to tomographic volume of interest. However all the differences were under the threshold of any clinical importance. The comparison between method A and B1 based on patient study also showed differences mostly of none clinical importance. CONCLUSION: Routine evaluation of split renal function using planar technique with correction of the kidney depth is at least equivalent to tomographic evaluation, and there is no need to update the established clinical practice.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of planar DMSA scan with an evaluation based on SPECT imaging in the split renal function assessment

Popis výsledku anglicky

BACKGROUND: Validation of the Tc-99m-DMSA planar scintigraphy accuracy for split renal function assessment and comparison with evaluation based on SPECT imaging both with and without CT attenuation correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For split renal function assessment two methods were used: A) planar scintigraphy based on anterior and posterior projections using correction for kidney depth calculated by the geometric mean; B) semi-quantitative evaluation based on SPECT (B1) and attenuation-corrected SPECT/CT (B2) images using locally developed software for kidney segmentation and voxel-based analysis. All three methods were performed with a phantom simulating body including pair of kidneys. For patient study methods A and B1 were applied on a group of 140 children and adolescents with various renal diseases. Renal function ratios were compared both mutually and with physically measured activity ratios in the phantom. RESULTS: Method A provided results which were closest to measured reference values (average absolute difference of 0.9 percentage points [pp]). Method B1 was noticeably worse (2.1pp), whereas attenuation correction (B2) improved tomography results considerably (1.3 pp). The superiority of planar imaging could be caused among others by differences in creation of planar range of interest compared to tomographic volume of interest. However all the differences were under the threshold of any clinical importance. The comparison between method A and B1 based on patient study also showed differences mostly of none clinical importance. CONCLUSION: Routine evaluation of split renal function using planar technique with correction of the kidney depth is at least equivalent to tomographic evaluation, and there is no need to update the established clinical practice.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FP - Ostatní lékařské obory

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Nuclear Medicine Review

ISSN

1506-9680

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

19

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

12-17

Kód UT WoS článku

000378162200002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-84958750041