{"id":{"repo_id":"cape-town","oai_identifier":"oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/29578"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cape-town/oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/29578","repository":{"repo_id":"cape-town","name":"University of Cape Town","base_url":"https://open.uct.ac.za/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The conclusions drawn from ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared to lung perfusion SPECT and a chest x-ray (CXR) in patients with suspected pulmonary pulmonary thromboembolism","abstract":"Purpose: There are conflicting results from studies on whether the ventilation (V) scintigraphy can be safely omitted or replaced by a chest x-ray. These studies were based on planar ventilation perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy. We evaluated the value of the V single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) on the final conclusion drawn from a V/Q SPECT and the possible role of the chest x-ray as a surrogate for the V SPECT. Methods Raw data of V/Q SPECT images and chest x-ray acquired within 48 hours over 18 months period were retrieved, reprocessed and reviewed in batches. The V SPECT, Q SPECT and chest x-ray were reviewed separately and in combination. Data on the presence and character of defects and chest x-ray abnormalities were recorded. The V/Q SPECT images were interpreted using the criteria in the EANM guideline and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray images were interpreted using the PISAPED criteria. Agreement between the diagnosis on the V/Q SPECT review and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review was analysed. Results 21.1% of the patients were classified as 'PE present’ on the V/Q SPECT review whereas 48.9% were classified as 'PE present’ on the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review. Only 5.4% of defects seen on V SPECT had matched chest x-ray lung field opacity. Conclusion Our study showed that the omission of a V SPECT led to a high rate of false positive diagnoses and that the ventilation scan cannot be replaced by a chest x-ray.","abstract_html":"Purpose: There are conflicting results from studies on whether the ventilation (V) scintigraphy can be safely omitted or replaced by a chest x-ray. These studies were based on planar ventilation perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy. We evaluated the value of the V single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) on the final conclusion drawn from a V/Q SPECT and the possible role of the chest x-ray as a surrogate for the V SPECT. Methods Raw data of V/Q SPECT images and chest x-ray acquired within 48 hours over 18 months period were retrieved, reprocessed and reviewed in batches. The V SPECT, Q SPECT and chest x-ray were reviewed separately and in combination. Data on the presence and character of defects and chest x-ray abnormalities were recorded. The V/Q SPECT images were interpreted using the criteria in the EANM guideline and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray images were interpreted using the PISAPED criteria. Agreement between the diagnosis on the V/Q SPECT review and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review was analysed. Results 21.1% of the patients were classified as 'PE present’ on the V/Q SPECT review whereas 48.9% were classified as 'PE present’ on the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review. Only 5.4% of defects seen on V SPECT had matched chest x-ray lung field opacity. Conclusion Our study showed that the omission of a V SPECT led to a high rate of false positive diagnoses and that the ventilation scan cannot be replaced by a chest x-ray.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Abubakar, Sofiullah"],"institution":"Department of Radiation Medicine","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Kotze, Tessa","Mann, Mike D"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018","date_published":"2018","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:22:50Z","subjects":[],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/11427/29578","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Kotze, Tessa","Mann, Mike D"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Abubakar, Sofiullah"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2019-02-18T10:01:07Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-02-18T10:01:07Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2018"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Department of Radiation Medicine"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cape Town"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Master Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["MMed"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/29578"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Purpose: There are conflicting results from studies on whether the ventilation (V) scintigraphy can be safely omitted or replaced by a chest x-ray. These studies were based on planar ventilation perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy. We evaluated the value of the V single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) on the final conclusion drawn from a V/Q SPECT and the possible role of the chest x-ray as a surrogate for the V SPECT. Methods Raw data of V/Q SPECT images and chest x-ray acquired within 48 hours over 18 months period were retrieved, reprocessed and reviewed in batches. The V SPECT, Q SPECT and chest x-ray were reviewed separately and in combination. Data on the presence and character of defects and chest x-ray abnormalities were recorded. The V/Q SPECT images were interpreted using the criteria in the EANM guideline and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray images were interpreted using the PISAPED criteria. Agreement between the diagnosis on the V/Q SPECT review and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review was analysed. Results 21.1% of the patients were classified as 'PE present’ on the V/Q SPECT review whereas 48.9% were classified as 'PE present’ on the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review. Only 5.4% of defects seen on V SPECT had matched chest x-ray lung field opacity. Conclusion Our study showed that the omission of a V SPECT led to a high rate of false positive diagnoses and that the ventilation scan cannot be replaced by a chest x-ray."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The conclusions drawn from ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared to lung perfusion SPECT and a chest x-ray (CXR) in patients with suspected pulmonary pulmonary thromboembolism"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Kotze, Tessa","Mann, Mike D"],"dc:creator":["Abubakar, Sofiullah"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2019-02-18T10:01:07Z"],"dc:date.available":["2019-02-18T10:01:07Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2018"],"dc:description.abstract":["Purpose: There are conflicting results from studies on whether the ventilation (V) scintigraphy can be safely omitted or replaced by a chest x-ray. These studies were based on planar ventilation perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy. We evaluated the value of the V single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) on the final conclusion drawn from a V/Q SPECT and the possible role of the chest x-ray as a surrogate for the V SPECT. Methods Raw data of V/Q SPECT images and chest x-ray acquired within 48 hours over 18 months period were retrieved, reprocessed and reviewed in batches. The V SPECT, Q SPECT and chest x-ray were reviewed separately and in combination. Data on the presence and character of defects and chest x-ray abnormalities were recorded. The V/Q SPECT images were interpreted using the criteria in the EANM guideline and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray images were interpreted using the PISAPED criteria. Agreement between the diagnosis on the V/Q SPECT review and the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review was analysed. Results 21.1% of the patients were classified as 'PE present’ on the V/Q SPECT review whereas 48.9% were classified as 'PE present’ on the Q SPECT and chest x-ray review. Only 5.4% of defects seen on V SPECT had matched chest x-ray lung field opacity. Conclusion Our study showed that the omission of a V SPECT led to a high rate of false positive diagnoses and that the ventilation scan cannot be replaced by a chest x-ray."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/29578"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher.department":["Department of Radiation Medicine"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cape Town"],"dc:title":["The conclusions drawn from ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared to lung perfusion SPECT and a chest x-ray (CXR) in patients with suspected pulmonary pulmonary thromboembolism"],"dc:type":["Master Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Masters"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["MMed"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:22:50Z"}