Variability in lutetium-177 SPECT quantification between different state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems.
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Feb 2020
11 Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
07
10
2019
accepted:
27
01
2020
entrez:
13
2
2020
pubmed:
13
2
2020
medline:
13
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Quantitative SPECT imaging in targeted radionuclide therapy with lutetium-177 holds great potential for individualized treatment based on dose assessment. The establishment of dose-effect relations requires a standardized method for SPECT quantification. The purpose of this multi-center study is to evaluate quantitative accuracy and inter-system variations of different SPECT/CT systems with corresponding commercially available quantitative reconstruction algorithms. This is an important step towards a vendor-independent standard for quantitative lutetium-177 SPECT. Four state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems were included: Discovery™ NM/CT 670Pro (GE Healthcare), Symbia Intevo™, and two Symbia™ T16 (Siemens Healthineers). Quantitative accuracy and inter-system variations were evaluated by repeatedly scanning a cylindrical phantom with 6 spherical inserts (0.5 - 113 ml). A sphere-to-background activity concentration ratio of 10:1 was used. Acquisition settings were standardized: medium energy collimator, body contour trajectory, photon energy window of 208 keV (± 10%), adjacent 20% lower scatter window, 2 × 64 projections, 128 × 128 matrix size, and 40 s projection time. Reconstructions were performed using GE Evolution with Q.Metrix™, Siemens xSPECT Quant™, Siemens Broad Quantification™ or Siemens Flash3D™ algorithms using vendor recommended settings. In addition, projection data were reconstructed using Hermes SUV SPECT™ with standardized reconstruction settings to obtain a vendor-neutral quantitative reconstruction for all systems. Volumes of interest (VOI) for the spheres were obtained by applying a 50% threshold of the sphere maximum voxel value corrected for background activity. For each sphere, the mean and maximum recovery coefficient (RC RC decreased with decreasing sphere volume. Inter-system variations with vendor-specific reconstructions were between 0.06 and 0.41 for RC This study shows that eliminating sources of possible variation drastically reduces inter-system variation in quantification. This means that absolute SPECT quantification for
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Quantitative SPECT imaging in targeted radionuclide therapy with lutetium-177 holds great potential for individualized treatment based on dose assessment. The establishment of dose-effect relations requires a standardized method for SPECT quantification. The purpose of this multi-center study is to evaluate quantitative accuracy and inter-system variations of different SPECT/CT systems with corresponding commercially available quantitative reconstruction algorithms. This is an important step towards a vendor-independent standard for quantitative lutetium-177 SPECT.
METHODS
METHODS
Four state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems were included: Discovery™ NM/CT 670Pro (GE Healthcare), Symbia Intevo™, and two Symbia™ T16 (Siemens Healthineers). Quantitative accuracy and inter-system variations were evaluated by repeatedly scanning a cylindrical phantom with 6 spherical inserts (0.5 - 113 ml). A sphere-to-background activity concentration ratio of 10:1 was used. Acquisition settings were standardized: medium energy collimator, body contour trajectory, photon energy window of 208 keV (± 10%), adjacent 20% lower scatter window, 2 × 64 projections, 128 × 128 matrix size, and 40 s projection time. Reconstructions were performed using GE Evolution with Q.Metrix™, Siemens xSPECT Quant™, Siemens Broad Quantification™ or Siemens Flash3D™ algorithms using vendor recommended settings. In addition, projection data were reconstructed using Hermes SUV SPECT™ with standardized reconstruction settings to obtain a vendor-neutral quantitative reconstruction for all systems. Volumes of interest (VOI) for the spheres were obtained by applying a 50% threshold of the sphere maximum voxel value corrected for background activity. For each sphere, the mean and maximum recovery coefficient (RC
RESULTS
RESULTS
RC decreased with decreasing sphere volume. Inter-system variations with vendor-specific reconstructions were between 0.06 and 0.41 for RC
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that eliminating sources of possible variation drastically reduces inter-system variation in quantification. This means that absolute SPECT quantification for
Identifiants
pubmed: 32048097
doi: 10.1186/s40658-020-0278-3
pii: 10.1186/s40658-020-0278-3
pmc: PMC7013023
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Dec;45(13):2456-2474
pubmed: 30218316
J Nucl Med. 2010 Jun;51(6):921-8
pubmed: 20484423
J Nucl Med. 2018 Apr;59(4):616-624
pubmed: 29097409
J Nucl Med Technol. 2011 Sep;39(3):213-9
pubmed: 21795376
Med Phys. 2018 May;45(5):2143-2153
pubmed: 29572848
Eur J Nucl Med. 1990;16(4-6):361-5
pubmed: 2351184
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Jul 18;64(14):145017
pubmed: 31207583
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Sep;37(9):983-7
pubmed: 27128824
J Nucl Med. 2018 Mar;59(3):459-465
pubmed: 28798031
EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Dec 26;6(1):29
pubmed: 31879813
Curr Oncol Rep. 2017 Feb;19(2):9
pubmed: 28220446
Int J Biomed Imaging. 2011;2011:693795
pubmed: 21760768
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Jun;31(3):290-303
pubmed: 29181613
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Dec;38(12):2136-44
pubmed: 21858528
EJNMMI Res. 2016 Dec;6(1):16
pubmed: 26887986
J Nucl Med. 2010 Dec;51(12):1870-7
pubmed: 21078791
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Aug 21;51(16):3967-81
pubmed: 16885618
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1847-56
pubmed: 18427807
J Nucl Med. 2013 Jan;54(1):83-9
pubmed: 23283563
J Nucl Med. 2002 Aug;43(8):1101-9
pubmed: 12163637
Cancer Imaging. 2011 Jun 15;11:56-66
pubmed: 21684829
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jun 7;58(11):3631-47
pubmed: 23648371
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):539-48
pubmed: 24865311
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;57(1):151-62
pubmed: 26471692
EJNMMI Res. 2015 Dec;5(1):114
pubmed: 26099227
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Dec;42(13):1976-83
pubmed: 26227531
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Sep 7;50(17):4169-85
pubmed: 16177538
J Nucl Med. 2015 Feb;56(2):177-82
pubmed: 25593115
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):42-51
pubmed: 26318602
J Nucl Med. 2012 Aug;53(8):1310-25
pubmed: 22743252
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):125-135
pubmed: 28076709
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(8):1344-1361
pubmed: 29500480
J Nucl Med. 2016 Aug;57(8):1170-6
pubmed: 26985056
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003 Feb;18(1):99-107
pubmed: 12667313
Front Neuroinform. 2013 Dec 30;7:45
pubmed: 24416015
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 May;41 Suppl 1:S17-25
pubmed: 24037503