利用定量SPECT/CT测量甲状腺体积以确定巴塞杜氏甲状腺功能亢进症的最佳阈值。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Chengpeng Gong, Yajing Zhang, Fei Feng, Mengmeng Hu, Kun Li, Rundong Pi, Hua Shu, Rongmei Tang, Xiaoli Wang, Shilin Tan, Fan Hu, Jia Hu
{"title":"利用定量SPECT/CT测量甲状腺体积以确定巴塞杜氏甲状腺功能亢进症的最佳阈值。","authors":"Chengpeng Gong, Yajing Zhang, Fei Feng, Mengmeng Hu, Kun Li, Rundong Pi, Hua Shu, Rongmei Tang, Xiaoli Wang, Shilin Tan, Fan Hu, Jia Hu","doi":"10.1186/s40658-023-00608-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the optimal threshold for measuring thyroid volume in patients with Grave's hyperthyroidism (GH) by SPECT/CT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A 53 mL butterfly-shaped hollow container made of two 45-degree transparent elbows was put into a NEMA IEC phantom tank. The butterfly-shaped container and the tank were then filled with Na<sup>99m</sup>TcO4 of different radioactive concentrations, respectively, which could simulate thyroid gland with GH by different target-to-background ratios (T/B) (200:1, 600:1, 1000:1). The different T/B of planar imaging and SPECT/CT were acquired by a Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro SPECT/CT. With Thyroid software (Version 4.0) of GE-Xeleris workstation, the region of the thyroid gland in planar imaging was delineated. The thyroid area and average long diameter of both lobes were substituted into the Allen formula to calculate the thyroid volume. The calculation error was compared with the actual volume. Q-Metrix software was used to perform CT-based attenuation correction, scatter correction, resolution recovery. Ordered-subsets expectation maximization was used to reconstruct SPECT data. 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% thresholds were selected to automatically delineate the volume of interest and compared with the real volume, which determinated the optimal threshold. We measured the thyroid volume of 40 GH patients using the threshold and compared the volumes obtained by planar imaging and ultrasound three-dimensional. The differences of the volumes with different T/B and thresholds were compared by the ANOVA and least significant difference t test. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT were evaluated using ANOVA, least significant difference t test, correlation analysis and, linear regression and Bland-Altman concordance test plot. The differences and consistency of thyroid volume were compared among the above three methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the results between different T/B models (P > 0.05). The thyroid volume calculated by the planar imaging formula method was higher than the real volume, with an average overestimation of 22.81%. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT threshold automatically decreased while the threshold increased. There were significant differences between groups with different thresholds (P < 0.001). With an average error of 3.73%, the thyroid volume analyzed by the threshold of 25% was close to the results of ultrasound measurement (P > 0.05). Thyroid volume measured by planar imaging method was significantly higher than ultrasound and SPECT/CT threshold automatic delineation method (P < 0.05). The agreement between the SPECT/CT 25% threshold and ultrasound (r = 0.956, b = 0.961) was better than that between the planar imaging and ultrasound (r = 0.590, b = 0.574). The Bland-Altman plot also showed that the thyroid volume measured by the 25% threshold automatic delineation method was in good agreement with the ultrasound measurement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The T/B has no effect on the measurement of thyroid volume in GH patients; planar imaging method can significantly overestimate thyroid volume in GH patients, and 25% threshold automatic delineation method can obtain more accurate thyroid volume in GH patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11559,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI Physics","volume":"11 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10766934/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The determination of the optimal threshold on measurement of thyroid volume using quantitative SPECT/CT for Graves' hyperthyroidism.\",\"authors\":\"Chengpeng Gong, Yajing Zhang, Fei Feng, Mengmeng Hu, Kun Li, Rundong Pi, Hua Shu, Rongmei Tang, Xiaoli Wang, Shilin Tan, Fan Hu, Jia Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40658-023-00608-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the optimal threshold for measuring thyroid volume in patients with Grave's hyperthyroidism (GH) by SPECT/CT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A 53 mL butterfly-shaped hollow container made of two 45-degree transparent elbows was put into a NEMA IEC phantom tank. The butterfly-shaped container and the tank were then filled with Na<sup>99m</sup>TcO4 of different radioactive concentrations, respectively, which could simulate thyroid gland with GH by different target-to-background ratios (T/B) (200:1, 600:1, 1000:1). The different T/B of planar imaging and SPECT/CT were acquired by a Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro SPECT/CT. With Thyroid software (Version 4.0) of GE-Xeleris workstation, the region of the thyroid gland in planar imaging was delineated. The thyroid area and average long diameter of both lobes were substituted into the Allen formula to calculate the thyroid volume. The calculation error was compared with the actual volume. Q-Metrix software was used to perform CT-based attenuation correction, scatter correction, resolution recovery. Ordered-subsets expectation maximization was used to reconstruct SPECT data. 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% thresholds were selected to automatically delineate the volume of interest and compared with the real volume, which determinated the optimal threshold. We measured the thyroid volume of 40 GH patients using the threshold and compared the volumes obtained by planar imaging and ultrasound three-dimensional. The differences of the volumes with different T/B and thresholds were compared by the ANOVA and least significant difference t test. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT were evaluated using ANOVA, least significant difference t test, correlation analysis and, linear regression and Bland-Altman concordance test plot. The differences and consistency of thyroid volume were compared among the above three methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the results between different T/B models (P > 0.05). The thyroid volume calculated by the planar imaging formula method was higher than the real volume, with an average overestimation of 22.81%. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT threshold automatically decreased while the threshold increased. There were significant differences between groups with different thresholds (P < 0.001). With an average error of 3.73%, the thyroid volume analyzed by the threshold of 25% was close to the results of ultrasound measurement (P > 0.05). Thyroid volume measured by planar imaging method was significantly higher than ultrasound and SPECT/CT threshold automatic delineation method (P < 0.05). The agreement between the SPECT/CT 25% threshold and ultrasound (r = 0.956, b = 0.961) was better than that between the planar imaging and ultrasound (r = 0.590, b = 0.574). The Bland-Altman plot also showed that the thyroid volume measured by the 25% threshold automatic delineation method was in good agreement with the ultrasound measurement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The T/B has no effect on the measurement of thyroid volume in GH patients; planar imaging method can significantly overestimate thyroid volume in GH patients, and 25% threshold automatic delineation method can obtain more accurate thyroid volume in GH patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJNMMI Physics\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10766934/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJNMMI Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-023-00608-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-023-00608-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究通过 SPECT/CT 测量格拉夫氏甲状腺功能亢进症(GH)患者甲状腺容积的最佳阈值:将一个由两个 45 度透明弯头组成的 53 mL 蝶形空心容器放入一个 NEMA IEC 幻影罐中。然后在蝶形容器和水箱中分别注入不同放射性浓度的 Na99mTcO4,通过不同的靶-本底比(T/B)(200:1、600:1、1000:1)模拟甲状腺与 GH。不同T/B的平面成像和SPECT/CT均由Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro SPECT/CT采集。利用GE-Xeleris工作站的甲状腺软件(4.0版),在平面成像中划定甲状腺区域。将甲状腺面积和两叶平均长径代入艾伦公式计算甲状腺体积。计算误差与实际体积进行比较。Q-Metrix软件用于进行基于CT的衰减校正、散射校正和分辨率恢复。有序子集期望最大化用于重建SPECT数据。选择20%、25%、30%、40%、50%、60%的阈值来自动划定感兴趣的体积,并与实际体积进行比较,从而确定最佳阈值。我们使用阈值测量了 40 名 GH 患者的甲状腺体积,并比较了平面成像和超声三维成像获得的体积。通过方差分析和最小显著性差异t检验比较了不同T/B和阈值下体积的差异。采用方差分析、最小显著性差异 t 检验、相关性分析、线性回归和 Bland-Altman 一致性检验图评估 SPECT/CT 划分的体积。比较了上述三种方法在甲状腺体积上的差异和一致性:不同T/B模型之间的结果无明显差异(P>0.05)。平面成像公式法计算的甲状腺体积高于实际体积,平均高估22.81%。当阈值升高时,SPECT/CT阈值划定的体积自动减小。不同阈值组间差异明显(P 0.05)。平面成像法测得的甲状腺体积明显高于超声和SPECT/CT阈值自动划定法(P 结论:平面成像法测得的甲状腺体积明显高于超声和SPECT/CT阈值自动划定法:T/B对GH患者甲状腺容积的测量没有影响;平面成像法会明显高估GH患者的甲状腺容积,而25%阈值自动划线法可以获得更准确的GH患者甲状腺容积。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The determination of the optimal threshold on measurement of thyroid volume using quantitative SPECT/CT for Graves' hyperthyroidism.

Purpose: To investigate the optimal threshold for measuring thyroid volume in patients with Grave's hyperthyroidism (GH) by SPECT/CT.

Materials and methods: A 53 mL butterfly-shaped hollow container made of two 45-degree transparent elbows was put into a NEMA IEC phantom tank. The butterfly-shaped container and the tank were then filled with Na99mTcO4 of different radioactive concentrations, respectively, which could simulate thyroid gland with GH by different target-to-background ratios (T/B) (200:1, 600:1, 1000:1). The different T/B of planar imaging and SPECT/CT were acquired by a Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro SPECT/CT. With Thyroid software (Version 4.0) of GE-Xeleris workstation, the region of the thyroid gland in planar imaging was delineated. The thyroid area and average long diameter of both lobes were substituted into the Allen formula to calculate the thyroid volume. The calculation error was compared with the actual volume. Q-Metrix software was used to perform CT-based attenuation correction, scatter correction, resolution recovery. Ordered-subsets expectation maximization was used to reconstruct SPECT data. 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% thresholds were selected to automatically delineate the volume of interest and compared with the real volume, which determinated the optimal threshold. We measured the thyroid volume of 40 GH patients using the threshold and compared the volumes obtained by planar imaging and ultrasound three-dimensional. The differences of the volumes with different T/B and thresholds were compared by the ANOVA and least significant difference t test. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT were evaluated using ANOVA, least significant difference t test, correlation analysis and, linear regression and Bland-Altman concordance test plot. The differences and consistency of thyroid volume were compared among the above three methods.

Results: There was no significant difference in the results between different T/B models (P > 0.05). The thyroid volume calculated by the planar imaging formula method was higher than the real volume, with an average overestimation of 22.81%. The volumes delineated by SPECT/CT threshold automatically decreased while the threshold increased. There were significant differences between groups with different thresholds (P < 0.001). With an average error of 3.73%, the thyroid volume analyzed by the threshold of 25% was close to the results of ultrasound measurement (P > 0.05). Thyroid volume measured by planar imaging method was significantly higher than ultrasound and SPECT/CT threshold automatic delineation method (P < 0.05). The agreement between the SPECT/CT 25% threshold and ultrasound (r = 0.956, b = 0.961) was better than that between the planar imaging and ultrasound (r = 0.590, b = 0.574). The Bland-Altman plot also showed that the thyroid volume measured by the 25% threshold automatic delineation method was in good agreement with the ultrasound measurement.

Conclusions: The T/B has no effect on the measurement of thyroid volume in GH patients; planar imaging method can significantly overestimate thyroid volume in GH patients, and 25% threshold automatic delineation method can obtain more accurate thyroid volume in GH patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EJNMMI Physics
EJNMMI Physics Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EJNMMI Physics is an international platform for scientists, users and adopters of nuclear medicine with a particular interest in physics matters. As a companion journal to the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, this journal has a multi-disciplinary approach and welcomes original materials and studies with a focus on applied physics and mathematics as well as imaging systems engineering and prototyping in nuclear medicine. This includes physics-driven approaches or algorithms supported by physics that foster early clinical adoption of nuclear medicine imaging and therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信