Dosimetric impact of 3D motion-compensated SPECT reconstruction for SIRT planning.
3D compensated reconstruction
99mTc-MAA
Breathing motion
Dosimetry
Radioembolization
SPECT/CT
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Feb 2023
07 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
24
10
2022
accepted:
11
01
2023
entrez:
7
2
2023
pubmed:
8
2
2023
medline:
8
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In selective internal radiation therapy, Twenty-nine patients with liver cancer or hepatic metastases treated by radioembolization were included in this study. The biodistribution of The mean amplitude of the liver was 9.5 ± 2.7 mm. Medians of PDD were closed to zero for all VOI except for lungs (6.4%) which means that the motion compensation overestimates the absorbed dose to the lungs compared to the 3D reconstruction. The smallest lesions had higher PDD than the largest ones. Between 3D and 3Dcomp reconstructions, means of differences in lung dose and TN ratio were not statistically significant, but in some cases these differences exceed 1 Gy (4/31) and 8% (2/31). The absolute differences in activity were on average 3.1% ± 5.1% and can reach 22.8%. The correction of respiratory motion mainly impacts the lung and tumor doses but only for some patients. The largest dose differences are observed for the smallest lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In selective internal radiation therapy,
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-nine patients with liver cancer or hepatic metastases treated by radioembolization were included in this study. The biodistribution of
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean amplitude of the liver was 9.5 ± 2.7 mm. Medians of PDD were closed to zero for all VOI except for lungs (6.4%) which means that the motion compensation overestimates the absorbed dose to the lungs compared to the 3D reconstruction. The smallest lesions had higher PDD than the largest ones. Between 3D and 3Dcomp reconstructions, means of differences in lung dose and TN ratio were not statistically significant, but in some cases these differences exceed 1 Gy (4/31) and 8% (2/31). The absolute differences in activity were on average 3.1% ± 5.1% and can reach 22.8%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The correction of respiratory motion mainly impacts the lung and tumor doses but only for some patients. The largest dose differences are observed for the smallest lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36749446
doi: 10.1186/s40658-023-00525-y
pii: 10.1186/s40658-023-00525-y
pmc: PMC9905464
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Phys Med Biol. 2021 Mar 02;66(6):065001
pubmed: 33571969
Nucl Med Commun. 2021 Apr 1;42(4):402-409
pubmed: 33306630
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):5270-5279
pubmed: 28736826
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 May;48(5):1570-1584
pubmed: 33433699
Med Phys. 2022 Aug;49(8):5330-5339
pubmed: 35446448
Ann Nucl Med. 2019 May;33(5):305-316
pubmed: 30680536
Cancer. 2008 Sep 1;113(5):921-9
pubmed: 18618495
Acta Radiol. 2018 Feb;59(2):132-139
pubmed: 28509566
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Dec;109:57-61
pubmed: 30527312
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205
pubmed: 19923044
Med Phys. 2019 Aug;46(8):3496-3507
pubmed: 31183868
Phys Med. 2022 Jun;98:98-112
pubmed: 35526374
J Nucl Med. 2010 Jun;51(6):921-8
pubmed: 20484423
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):1624-1636
pubmed: 29107679
Med Phys. 2020 Oct;47(10):5333-5342
pubmed: 32790882
Med Phys. 2021 Jul;48(7):3842-3851
pubmed: 34013551
Nucl Med Commun. 2018 Mar;39(3):222-227
pubmed: 29351124
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Nov 1;33(4):919-24
pubmed: 7591903
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Apr;49(5):1682-1699
pubmed: 35146577
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Oct 1;87(2):394-400
pubmed: 23910710
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021 Oct 29;7(1):100838
pubmed: 35071835
EJNMMI Res. 2018 Jun 15;8(1):50
pubmed: 29904808
EJNMMI Res. 2014 Jun 29;4:33
pubmed: 25024931
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Mar;43(3):559-75
pubmed: 26338177
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jun 12;12(6):
pubmed: 32545572
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Apr;47(4):828-837
pubmed: 31388721
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Jan;44(1):21-35
pubmed: 32959085
J Nucl Med. 2007 Apr;48(4):630-6
pubmed: 17401102
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 Nov;35(11):2425-2435
pubmed: 27295657
Phys Med Biol. 2021 May 14;66(10):
pubmed: 33770774
Radiology. 2019 Oct;293(1):223-231
pubmed: 31453767
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 May;23(5):669-74
pubmed: 22525023
EJNMMI Phys. 2022 May 16;9(1):37
pubmed: 35575946
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1695-1704
pubmed: 31098749
EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Dec 26;6(1):29
pubmed: 31879813
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1;65(2):554-60
pubmed: 16690437
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jan;6(1):17-29
pubmed: 33166497