Search for: [Abstract = "ction, phase 5–the comparison of two reconstructions techniques\: defined OSEM versus FBP \(Butterworth, fc=0,86\). All results of the qualitative analysis were compared with the phantom studies. Additionally, the correlation between results of SPECT images analysis for OSEM\(8,10\) with scatter correction versus receptor overexpression for analog somatostatin was investigated. Results\: Phase 1–The qualitative assessment–the lesions localized in the liver \(group I\)\: the highest number of lesions was assessed as very well visible \(1\) for OSEM\(8,i\) \(subgroup 1\: 54\-63%,p<0,05\; subgroup 2\: 59\-86%, p<0,05\; subgroup 3\: 88%,p>0,05\). The lesions with outliver localization \(group II\)\: the highest number of lesions was assessed as 1 for OSEM\(8,i\) in subgroup 1 and 2 \(6\-38% and 54\-77%, respectively\;p<0,05\) and OSEM\(16,i\) in subgroup 3 \(93%,p>0,05\). The quantitative assessment\-for \[99mTc\-EDDA\/HYNIC\]octreotate focus uptake in the lesions the mean value of TCS\/TCB ratio was\:group I–subgroup 1\: 1,49±0,43\(OSEM\(8,i\)\)\; 1,55±0,38\(OSEM\(16,i\) and 1,54±0,33\(OSEM\(32,i\)\; subgroup 2 \:2,10±0,71\(OSEM\(8,i\)\)\; 2,14±0,70\(OSEM\(16,i\)\) and 2,15±0,63\(OSEM\(32,i\)\)\; subgroup 3\:3,66±0,79\(OSEM\(8,i\)\)\; 3,51±0,67\(OSEM\(16,i\)\) and 3,51±0,65\(OSEM\(32,i\)\). Similar increase of the target\/non\-target ratio with increasing subsets number was observed in group II\: subgroup 1\:0,49±0,21\; 0,61±0,24 and 0,70±0,25\; sub"]

Number of results: 1