TABLE 2

Impact of NaI(Tl) Detector Thickness on Image Quality

ParameterCoDe5NCCoDe8NCP*95% CI
All tumor lesions (n = 54)
    T/NT ratio4.2 ± 3.56.3 ± 5.2<0.00051.3, 3.0
    T/Bg ratio4.9 ± 3.96.4 ± 5<0.00050.8, 2.3
Assessment of lesions according to location
    Above diaphragm (n = 31)
        T/NT ratio4.5 ± 47.1 ± 5.7<0.00051.3, 3.9
        T/Bg ratio5.25 ± 4.67.5 ± 5.7<0.00051.1, 3.4
    Below diaphragm (n = 23)
        T/NT ratio3.7 ± 2.65.2 ± 4.3<0.0010.6, 2.4
        T/Bg ratio4.3 ± 2.74.8 ± 3.3NS−0.3, 1.4
Assessment of lesion of different sizes
    Lesions <7.2 mL (n = 14)
        T/NT ratio3.6 ± 2.86.2 ± 4.7<0.0011.2, 4.0
        T/Bg ratio4 ± 36.6 ± 4.3<0.00051.4, 3.6
    Lesions 7.2–12.5 mL (n = 13)
        T/NT ratio4.2 ± 3.76 ± 2.7<0.010.3, 3.4
        T/Bg ratio4.6 ± 36.5 ± 3.3<0.03−0.02, 3.9
    Lesions 12.5–17.5 mL (n = 14)
        T/NT ratio4.4 ± 47 ± 7.7<0.010.4, 4.9
        T/Bg ratio5 ± 3.86.4 ± 6.4<0.05−0.3, 3.2
    Lesions >17.5 mL (n = 13)
        T/NT ratio4.5 ± 3.56 ± 4.9NS−0.5, 3.3
        T/Bg ratio6 ± 5.46 ± 5.7NS−1.3, 1.5
  • * P < 0.05 was considered significant. NS = not significant.

  • Parameters evaluated: T/NT ratio and T/Bg ratio. Lesion size was measured by functional volumes. Descriptive statistics were used to define 4 subgroup limits.

  • Image sets compared were CoDe5NC, 5/8-in. NaI(Tl) crystals without attention correction; and CoDe8NC, 1-in. NaI(Tl) crystals without attention correction.