Recent developments in PET and SPECT imaging.
Recent developments in PET and SPECT imaging.
复制标题
PET 和 SPECT 成像的最新进展。
DOI：
10.1002/jlcr.3196
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Pascu S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pascu S
这个特殊的JLCR卷的目的是提供一个快照，目前的研究在分子成像与正电子发射断层扫描（PET）和单光子发射计算机断层扫描（SPECT）的主要重点。我们邀请了该领域的知名人士和那些处于职业生涯早期阶段的人的贡献，这将是他们第一次有机会成为唯一或主要作者。我们感到高兴的是，几乎所有应邀捐款的国家都愿意参加。因此，这一卷包括21篇文章，其中一些是传统的研究论文和评论的混合，后者也包含一些原创研究。所涵盖的主题的多样性反映了广泛的研究进展中迅速扩大的领域的分子imaging.To放置的工作描述这卷在上下文中，它可能是适当的，看看简要地在一些统计和比较SPECT和PET。图1显示了过去30年来PubMed索引的PET和SPECT成像方面的出版物数量图。当然，这只是对这些领域的研究总量的一种简单化的表示，但可能确实反映了该领域的活动水平。PET生产线在此期间几乎呈指数增长，没有达到平台期的迹象。相比之下，关于SPECT的出版物已经稳定在当前PET成像论文的26%左右。SPECT成像趋势是人们可能期望的成熟技术，其中相对较少创新。全世界每年大约进行4 000万次基于放射性药物的临床扫描。SPECT成像（主要通过99mTc）是主要技术，占扫描的95%左右。唯一广泛使用的PET试剂是FDG，目前进行了大约100万次扫描，尽管预计这一数字在未来几年内将翻两番。强调PET成像背后的驱动力是更高的灵敏度，易于定量以及使用11C或18F能够以最小的结构修饰引入放射性标记的事实。这在标记用于靶向结构敏感性靶标（如脑）的小分子时特别有利。然而，这些优点必须与建立PET设施所涉及的高资本成本相比较，这表明在不久的将来，这种技术将无法在世界上较不发达的地区使用。1对于临床前小动物成像，PET的优势可能不太明显，因为PET的灵敏度较高（基于体模成像，大约高15倍），但SPECT的分辨率较高。即使在临床环境中，也有对帕金森病2或胸部病变患者的PET和SPECT试剂进行详细的比较研究3，这表明尽管PET具有明显的优势，但使用这两种技术获得的实际诊断信息非常相似。
The objective of this Special JLCR volume was to provide a snapshot of current research in molecular imaging with a primary focus on positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). We invited contributions from a mix of established figures in the field and those in the early stages of their career for whom this would be their first opportunity to be the sole or main author. We were delighted that virtually all of those invited to contribute were willing to participate. This volume thus comprises 21 articles, some of which are a blend of conventional research papers and reviews, and some of the latter also containing original research. The diversity of topics covered reflects the wide-ranging research in progress in the rapidly expanding field of molecular imaging.To place the work described this volume in context, it might be appropriate to look briefly at some statistics and a comparison of SPECT and PET. Figure 1 presents plots of the number of publications in PET and SPECT imaging indexed by PubMed over the past 30 years. It is only of course a somewhat simplistic representation of the total volume of research in these areas but probably does reflect the levels of activity in the field. The PET line shows virtually exponential growth over this period with no signs of reaching a plateau. By contrast, the publications on SPECT have levelled out at about 26% of current PET imaging papers. The SPECT imaging trend is what one might expect for a mature technique where there is comparatively less innovation. Approximately 40 million radiopharmaceutical-based clinical scans are made annually worldwide. SPECT imaging (mostly via 99mTc) is the dominant technique and accounts for around 95% of scans. The only PET agent that is being used at all widely is FDG, and currently, around one million scans are carried out, although this value is predicted to quadruple over the next couple of years. The driving forces behind the emphasis on PET imaging are higher sensitivity, ease of quantification and the fact that use of 11C or 18F enables the introduction of a radiolabel with minimal structural modification. This is particularly advantageous when labelling small molecules for targeting structurally sensitive targets such as the brain. However, these advantages have to be set against the high capital costs involved in setting up a PET facility, and this suggests that this technique will not be available in the less developed areas of the world in the near future. 1 The advantages of PET are perhaps less clear cut for preclinical small animal imaging where the higher sensitivity of PET (around 15 times higher based on phantom imaging) is offset by the higher resolution attainable using SPECT. Even in the clinical setting, there have been detailed comparative studies of PET and SPECT agents in patients with Parkinson’s disease2 or chest lesions, 3 which suggest that despite the apparent advantages of PET, the actual diagnostic information obtained using the two techniques are very similar.
DOI：
10.1007/s00259-008-0989-5
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
9.1
作者：
Eshuis, S. A.;Jager, P. L.;Leenders, K. L.
通讯作者：
Leenders, K. L.
F-18-2-氟-2-脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描与 Technetium-99m Hexakis-2-甲氧基异丁基异腈单光子发射胸部断层扫描在诊断不确定肺部病变中的比较
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
M. Santini;A. Fiorelli;G. Vicidomini;Paolo Laperuta;L. Busiello;P. Rambaldi;L. Mansi;A. Rotondo
通讯作者：
A. Rotondo