Original PaperUK audit of single photon emission computed tomography reconstruction software using software generated phantomsJARRITT, P. H.; WHALLEY, D. R.; SKRYPNIUK, J. V.; HOUSTON, A. S.; FLEMING, J. S.; COSGRIFF, P. S.Author Information IPEM Nuclear Medicine Software Working Party, York, UK *Address all correspondence to Professor Peter Jarritt, Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics Agency, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK. e-mail: [email protected] Received 28 August 2001, in revised form 2 January 2002 and accepted 8 January 2002 Nuclear Medicine Communications: May 2002 - Volume 23 - Issue 5 - p 483-491 Buy Abstract The purpose of this study was to undertake an audit of the quantitative characteristics of single photon emission computed tomography software using projection data from an analytically generated software phantom and a measured line source. The phantom consisted of three structures. A uniformly filled cylinder, a series of cylindrical rods of various diameters in a background activity with a rod to background ratio of 2 : 1 and lastly, a set of three concentric rings of activity in the ratio 1 : 0 : 1. The phantom contained no added statistical noise. No attenuation was imposed on the data. The phantom was generated analytically and projections were distributed at six different count densities. A single set of projections from a thin line source was also distributed. These data were distributed to centres throughout the UK. Centres were asked to reconstruct the data using a ‘ramp only’ reconstruction with no additional smoothing function applied. Data were requested for mean and standard deviation in the uniform cylinder, the maximum counts for each cylindrical rod and the mean counts in regions placed within the concentric rings. For the measured line source, centres were asked to measure the full width at half maximum and peak pixel counts for a profile through the reconstructed line. Results from 115 systems were obtained from 100 centres throughout the UK. These provided data from 12 software providers, 11 of these being commercial companies. Data were compared with the known input values and histograms of the distribution of results obtained. Significant differences in quantitative parameters were noted for the different input count densities as well as between suppliers and revisions of software from single suppliers. © 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.