• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.56-60
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The various studies and efforts to develop program are in progress in the field of nuclear medicine for the purpose of reducing scan time. The Oncoflash is one of the programs used in whole body bone scan which allows to maintain the image quality while to reduce scan time. When Those applications are used in clinical setting, both the image quality and reduction of scan time should be considered, therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the criteria for proper scan speed. Materials and Methods: The subjects of this study were the patients who underwent whole body bone scan at the departments of nuclear medicine in the Asan Medical Center located in Seoul from 1st to 10th, July, 2008. The whole body bone images obtained in the scan speed of 30cm/min were classified by the total counts into under 800 K, and over 800 K, 900 K, 1,000 K, 1,500 K, and 2,000 K. The image quality were assessed qualitatively and the percentages of those of 1,000K and under of total counts were calculated. The FWHM before and after applying the Oncoflash were analyzed using images obtained in $^{99m}Tc$ Flood and 4-Quadrant bar phantom in order to compare the resolution according to the amount of total counts by the application of the Oncoflash. Considering the counts of the whole body bone scan, the dosed 2~5 mCi were used. 152 patients underwent the measurement in which the counts of Patient Postioning Monitor (PPM) were measured with including head and the parts of chest which the starting point of whole body bone scan from 7th to 26th, August, 2008. The correlations with total counts obtained in the scan speed of 30cm/min among them were analyzed (The exclusion criteria were after over six hours of applying isotopes or low amount of doses). Results: The percentage of the whole body bone image which has the geometric average of total counts of under 1,000K among them obtained in the scan speed of 30cm/min were 17.6%(n=58) of 329 patients. The qualitative analysis of the image groups according to the whole body counts showed that the images of under 1,000K were assessed to have coarse particles and increased noises. The analysis on the FWHM of the images before and after applying the Oncoflash showed that, in the case of PPM counts of under 3.6 K, FWHM values after applying the Oncoflash were higher than that before applying the Oncoflash, whereas, in the case of that of over 3.6 K, the FWHM after applying the Oncoflash were not higher than that before applying the Oncoflash. The average of total counts at 2.5~3.0 K, 3.1~3.5 K, 3.6~4.0 k, 4.1~4.5 K, 4.6~5.0 K, 5.1~6.0 K, 6.1~7.0 K, and 7.1 K over (in PPM) were $965{\pm}173\;K$, $1084{\pm}154\;K$, $1242{\pm}186\;K$, $1359{\pm}170\;K$, $1405{\pm}184\;K$, $1640{\pm}376\;K$, $1,771{\pm}324\;K$, and $1,972{\pm}385\;K$, respectively and the correlations between the counts in PPM and the total counts of image obtained in the scan speed of 30 cm/min demonstrated strong correlation (r=.775, p<.01). Conclusions: In the case of PPM coefficient over 3.6 K, the image quality obtained in the scan speed of 30cm/min and after applying the Oncoflash was similar to that obtained in the scan speed of 15 cm/min. In the case of total counts over 1,000 K, it is expected to reduce scan time without any damage on the image quality. In the case of total counts under 1,000 K, however, the image quality were decreased even though the Oncoflash is applied, so it is recommended to perform the re-image in the scan speed of 15 cm/min.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.218-224
• /
• 2003

Purpose：By evaluating the dependence of the tray transmission factor (tray factor) on collimator setting and tray thickness, we determined the validity of the clinically used single tray factor for standard radiation field size (10${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$). Methods and Materials：For each X ray energies (6 and 10 MV), outputs were measured by using 5 steps of tray thickness (0, 6, 8, 10, 12 mm) and 7 steps of radiation field size (5${\times}$5, 10${\times}$10, 15${\times}$15, 20${\times}$20, 25${\times}$25, 30${\times}$30, 35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) at 10 cm phantom depth. Outputs were measured in both 'with tray' and 'without tray' conditions by using radiation with the same monitor units, and the tray factors were determined by the ratios of the two outputs. To evaluate the validity of a single tray factor obtained for standard radiation field, we analyzed the pattern of the field sizes in cases treated at our hospital in 2002. Results : In the 6 MV X-ray, the increases in the tray factor between the standard field (l0${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$) and the largest field (35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) were 0.517%, 0.835%, 1.058%, 1.066% in 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm thickness tray, respectively. In the 10 MV X-ray, the increases in the fray factor between the standard field (10${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$) and the largest field (35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) were 0.517%, 0.836%, 1.058%, 1.066% in 6, 8, 10, 12 mm thickness tray, respectively. In a major portion of clinical cases, when the field size was smaller than 20${\times}$20 $\textrm{cm}^2$, the tray factor was in good agreement with the standard tray factor. However, in cases where the field sizes were 30${\times}$30 $\textrm{cm}^2$ and 35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$, the error could exceed 1.0%. Conclusion：The tray factor increased with increasing field size or decreasing tray thickness. The difference of tray factor between the small field and the large field increased with increasing tray thickness. Furthermore, the standard tray factor was valid in most clinical cases except for when the field size was greater than 30${\times}$30 $\textrm{cm}^2$, wherein the error could exceed 1.0%.