Figure 5: The in vitro and in vivo phantom comparison between different imaging techniques.
From: In vivo nanoparticle-mediated radiopharmaceutical-excited fluorescence molecular imaging
(a) A schematic illustration of the in vitro tissue-mimicking phantom. (b) FMI of the 100 μCi 18F-FDG+1 mg EO mixture. (c,d) With no filtering, CLI using 18F-FDG only (c) and REFI using the mixture of EO and 18F-FDG (d) show obvious different signal intensity. (e,f) With 620-nm filtering, CLI (e) and REFI (f) also demonstrate intensity differences. (g) The optical intensity comparison between CLI and REFI with no filtering and 620-nm filtering. (h) The signal-to-background ratio comparison between FMI and REFI. (i) The PET image of the in vivo phantom shows no significant difference between the two implanted glass tubes (left tube: 50 μCi of 18F-FDG+0.15 mg of EO mixture, right tube: 18F-FDG, 50 μCi). (j,k) REFI and CLI show significant differences with no filtering (j) or 620-nm filtering (k). (l) FMI of the in vivo phantom. (m) The quantitative comparison of CLI and REFI in optical intensity with no filtering and 620 nm filtering. (n) The comparison of FMI and REFI in signal-to-background ratio.
