Table 5 Image quality assessment, lesion detectability, and SUV values for three different PET scanner models
Comparison between three different PET scanner models | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PET scanner | Dataset | Dataset identification | Image quality (1 to 5) | Number of lesions | SUVmax of target lesion | SUVmean of the liver |
Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
1 (n=20) | PET-native | 96.2% | 4.55 ± 0.61 | 1.91 ± 3.07 | 15.80 ± 11.64 | 1.87 ± 0.84 |
PET-processed | 97.5% | 4.57 ± 0.76 | 1.91 ± 3.07 | 13.84 ± 9.89 | 1.99 ± 0.86 | |
2 (n=21) | PET-native | 98.8% | 4.54 ± 0.59 | 3.58 ± 3.48 | 13.21 ± 10.8 | 1.81 ± 0.37 |
PET-processed | 100% | 4.70 ± 0.51 | 3.55 ± 3.50 | 11.35 ± 9.96 | 2.00 ± 0.46 | |
3 (n=20) | PET-native | 96.2% | 4.53 ± 0.62 | 3.53 ± 3.63 | 7.07 ± 4.63 | 2.19 ± 0.77 |
PET-processed | 96.2% | 4.60 ± 0.74 | 3.52 ± 3.65 | 6.05 ± 4.39 | 2.36 ± 0.81 | |