Atlas of SPECT Quality Control and Examples of Artifacts

  • L. Stephen Graham
  • Ralph R. Lake
  • Marvin B. Cohen
Part of the Atlases of Clinical Nuclear Medicine book series (ATLASES)


Numerous articles have documented the advantages of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) in a wide variety of clinical studies.1–4 The production of high quality diagnostic studies demands the highest performance from the camera and computer and careful attention to detail by the technologist conducting the study. Scintillation cameras with minor nonuniformities may give satisfactory planar images but if used for SPECT imaging may produce images that provide less diagnostic information or even create false positives.5,6 The purpose of this chapter is to describe a quality control (QC) program, to recommend the appropriate frequencies for performing quality control tests, and to provide examples of common problems. The following topics will be discussed: X and Y axes calibration, center-of-rotation, field uniformity correction, and phantoms.


Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Attenuation Correction Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Image Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Study Ring Artifact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Keyes JW Jr. Perspectives on tomography. J Nucl Med. 1982;23:633–640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myers MJ, Fazio F. The case for emission computed tomography with a rotating camera. Appl Radiol/NM. 1981;10:127–134.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuhl DE, Barrio JR, Huang SC, et al. Quantifying local cerebral blood flow by N-isopropyl-p[I-123]iodoamphetamine (IMP) tomography. J Nucl Med. 1982;23:196–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jaszczak RJ, Whitehead FR, Lim CB, et al. Lesion detection with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with conventional imaging. J Nucl Med. 1982;23:96–102.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harkness BA, Rogers WL, Clinthorne HN, et al. Quality control procedures and artifact identifications. J Nucl Med Tech. 1983;11:55–60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greer KL, Coleman RE, Jaszczak RJ. SPECT: a practical guide for users. J Nucl Med Tech. 1983;11:61–65.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    English RJ, Brown SE. SPECT Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography: A Primer. New York: The Society of Nuclear Medicine; 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham LS. A rational quality assurance program for SPECT instrumentation. In: Freeman LM, Weissmann HS, eds. Nuclear Medicine Annual 1989. New York: Raven Press; 1989:81–108.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saw CB, Clarke LP, Serafini AN. Influence of zoom factor on centre-of-rotation of the SPECT system and on the resolution of tomographic images. Nucl Med Commun. 1987;8:3–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Single photon emission computerised tomographic (SPECT) systems using rotating scintillation cameras. 1986 draft to be added to Quality Control of Nuclear Medicine Instruments. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang W, Shuqiang L, Williams JJ, et al. New methods of examining gamma camera collimators. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:676–683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Busemann-Sokole E. Measurement of collimator hole angulation and camera head tilt for slant and parallel hole collimators used in SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1987;28:1592–1598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malmin RE, Stanley PC, Guth WR. Collimator angulation error and its effect on SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:655–659.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silverstein EA, Spies SM. Evaluation of parallel hole collimators used for SPECT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1988;33(Suppl I):112. AbstractGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamoureux G, Verba J, Halpern SE. A new technique for the evaluation of hole parallelism in collimators used for SPECT. Clin Nucl Med. 1988; 13(Suppl):P20.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers WL, Clinthorne HN, Harkness BA, et al. Flood-field requirements for emission computed tomography with an Anger camera. J Nucl Med. 1982;23:162–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Todd-Pokropek A, Zerowski S, Soussaline F. Nonuniformity and artifact creation in emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:P38. Abstract.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collier BD, Slizofski WJ, Krasnow AZ. SPECT bone imaging (lumbar spine, hips, knees, and temporomandibular joint). In: Van Nostrand D, Baum S, eds. Atlas of Nuclear Medicine. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co; 1988:360–382.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burst KD, Graham MM. Aspects of patient imaging with SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1987;15:133–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Stephen Graham
  • Ralph R. Lake
  • Marvin B. Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations