SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Science Engineering and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 2

Development of a Portable Integrated Ultrasound and Gamma imaging system

Sefa Erturk(NIGDE OMER HALISDEMIR UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4051-9096
Vakkas Bozkurt(NIGDE OMER HALISDEMIR UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF FINE ARTS)0000-0003-4651-0447
Sezgin Aydın(TARSUS UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5380-1512
Nuray Yavuzkanat(BITLIS EREN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5055-9185
Taylan Yetkin(ISTINYE UNIVERSITY, RECTORATE)0000-0003-3277-5612
Kürşat Güreşci(Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Gothenburg, Sweden.)0000-0002-4619-6614
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show the superiority of GAGG(Ce) with 3.196 mm spatial resolution and 4.9% energy resolution, better than LYSO (3.391mm, 8.5%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Medical imaging devices that combine both the functional and anatomical modalities have proved to be highly accurate in diagnoses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A comparison was carried out using GATE/GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation for scintillator efficiency.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show the superiority of GAGG(Ce) with 3.196 mm spatial resolution and 4.9% energy resolution, better than LYSO (3.391mm, 8.5%).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:US-SPECT hybrid system · GAGG(Ce) · GATE simulation

Abstract

Medical imaging devices that combine both the functional and anatomical modalities have proved to be highly accurate in diagnoses. Nonetheless, current SPECT-CT systems are bulky, very costly, and non-portable, restricting their use for disabled patients. A comparison was carried out using GATE/GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation for scintillator efficiency. The experimental work used a 4×4 pixel array GAGG(Ce)+SiPM detector with SIB616/SIB1632 readout electronics and IQSP580 DAQ system. Hexagonal and pinhole collimators were thoroughly investigated. Two new algorithms for image fusion were created; these include Dynamic Alpha Blending and US-Protected Adaptive Overlay. The results show the superiority of GAGG(Ce) with 3.196 mm spatial resolution and 4.9% energy resolution, better than LYSO (3.391mm, 8.5%). Images with gamma photons were successfully acquired using phantom Tc-99m breast lesions from distances of 5 to 20 cm. Both dynamic algorithms yielded medically useful images with Method 2 having anatomical information and Method 1 with functional details. The US-SPECT device designed provides a major breakthrough in portable hybrid medical imaging, providing bedside capability for the disabled patients as well as lower radiation doses as compared to CT-based hybrid devices.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erturk, S., Bozkurt, V., Aydın, S., Yavuzkanat, N., Yetkin, T., Güreşci, K. (2026). Development of a Portable Integrated Ultrasound and Gamma imaging system. Eurasian Journal of Science Engineering and Technology, Volume: 7 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.55696/ejset.1978165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. World Health Organization, “Cancer today,” Global Cancer Observatory, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://gco.iarc.fr/today. [Accessed: May 18, 2026].
  2. B. Sadıkoğlu, A. Bilici, M. Korkmaz, S. Koca, V. Özmen, N. Çabioğlu, et al., “Breast cancer statistics in Turkey,” Eur. J. Breast Health, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–20, 2010.
  3. K. Armstrong, E. Moye, S. Williams, J. A. Berlin, and H. E. Reynolds, “Screening mammography in women 40–49 years of age: A systematic review for the American College of Physicians,” Ann. Intern. Med., vol. 146, no. 7, pp. 516–526, 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00008.
  4. C. Balleyguier, J. Arfi-Rouche, L. Haddag, S. Canale, S. Delaloge, and C. Dromain, “Breast imaging and diagnosis in young women,” Diagn. Interv. Imaging, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 743–752, 2018.
  5. J. A. Harvey, M. C. Mahoney, M. S. Newell, L. Bailey, L. D. Barke, C. D’Orsi, et al., “ACR Appropriateness Criteria palpable breast masses,” J. Am. Coll. Radiol., vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 742–749.e3, Oct. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.07.013.
  6. M. K. O’Connor, H. Li, D. J. Rhodes, C. B. Hruska, C. B. Clancy, and R. J. Vetter, “Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breast,” Med. Phys., vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 6187–6198, Dec. 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3512759.
  7. S. N. Histed, M. L. Lindenberg, E. Mena, B. Turkbey, P. L. Choyke, and K. A. Kurdziel, “Review of functional/anatomical imaging in oncology,” Nucl. Med. Commun., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 349–361, Apr. 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834ec8a5.
  8. B. L. Franc, P. D. Acton, C. Mari, and B. H. Hasegawa, “Small-animal SPECT and SPECT/CT: Important tools for preclinical investigation,” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1651–1663, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.055442.
  9. G. Garganese, G. Fragomeni, F. M. Pasciuto, et al., “Fusion of ultrasound and 3D single-photon-emission computed tomography/computed tomography to identify sentinel lymph nodes in vulvar cancer: Feasibility study,” Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 545–551, Oct. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20364.
  10. B. Çolakoğlu and D. Alış, “Diagnostic value of ultrasound and Tc-99m MIBI scintigraphy and SPECT/CT for pre-operative localization of parathyroid adenoma in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism,” J. Acad. Res. Med., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 115–120, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/jarem.2019.2719.
  11. C. N. Patel, H. M. Salahudeen, M. Lansdown, and A. F. Scarsbrook, “Clinical utility of ultrasound and 99mTc sestamibi SPECT/CT for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenoma in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism,” Clin. Radiol., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 278–287, Apr. 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.005.
  12. S. Kedarisetty, C. Fundakowski, K. Ramakrishnan, and S. Dadparvar, “Clinical value of Tc99m-MIBI SPECT/CT versus 4D-CT or US in management of patients with hyperparathyroidism,” Ear Nose Throat J., vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 149–157, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561319828668.
  13. R. Pani, M. N. Cinti, P. Bennati, R. Pellegrini, V. Orsolini Cencelli, A. Fabbri, et al., “Design and characterization of a dual modality (SPET-US) tomographic device,” in Proc. 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Anaheim, CA, USA, 2012, pp. 2516–2520.
  14. M. N. Cinti, R. Pani, R. Pellegrini, P. Bennati, C. Orlandi, A. Fabbri, et al., “Spectrometric performances of high quantum efficiency multi and single anode PMTs coupled to LaBr₃(Ce) crystal,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, vol. 724, pp. 27–33, Oct. 2013.
  15. S. L. David, I. G. Valais, C. M. Michail, and I. S. Kandarakis, “X-ray luminescence efficiency of GAGG:Ce single crystal scintillators for use in tomographic medical imaging systems,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 637, Art. no. 012004, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/637/1/012004.
  16. K. Nakanishi, S. Yamamoto, and J. Kataoka, “Performance comparison of finely pixelated LYSO- and GAGG-based Si-PM gamma cameras for high-resolution SPECT,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, vol. 872, pp. 107–111, Nov. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.08.013.
  17. H. Peng and C. S. Levin, “Recent developments in PET instrumentation,” Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 555–571, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.2174/138920110792927767.
  18. S. Jan, G. Santin, D. Strul, S. Staelens, K. Assié, D. Autret, et al., “GATE: A simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 49, no. 19, pp. 4543–4561, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/19/007.
  19. N. Yavuzkanat and S. Ertürk, “Investigation of the new generation detector system using in medical image,” Aksaray Univ. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 99–111, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.29002/asujse.648427.
  20. C. A. Schneider, W. S. Rasband, and K. W. Eliceiri, “NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis,” Nat. Methods, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 671–675, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089.
  21. N. U. Schramm, G. Ebel, U. Engeland, T. Schurrat, M. Bébé, and H. Halling, “High-resolution SPECT using multipinhole collimation,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 315–320, 2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2003.813197.
  22. H. Muraishi, K. Matsufuji, T. Kanai, H. Kato, Y. Koba, Y. Akagi, et al., “Evaluation of spatial resolution for heavy ion CT system based on the measurement of residual range distribution with HIMAC,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 56, no. 5, 2009.
  23. T. F. Budinger, “Physical attributes of single-photon tomography,” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 579–592, 1980.
  24. A. Panda, A. C. Homb, P. Krumm, K. Nikolaou, S. S. Huang, W. Jaber, M. A. Bolen, and P. S. Rajiah, “Cardiac nuclear medicine: Techniques, applications, and imaging findings,” RadioGraphics, vol. 43, no. 1, Art. no. e220027, Jan. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.220027.
  25. S. R. Cherry, J. A. Sorenson, and M. E. Phelps, Physics in Nuclear Medicine, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier Saunders, 2012.
  26. J. B. Hummel, M. Kaar, R. Hoffmann, W. Birkfellner, T. Beyer, A. Staudenherz, and M. Figl, “SPECT-US image fusion and clinical applications,” in Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging 2014: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling, vol. 9036, Art. no. 90362D, Mar. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2043558.