Optimization of Y-90 Radioembolization Imaging for Post-Treatment Dosimetry on a Long Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Scanner.
LAFOV
PET/CT
SIRT
Y90
radioembolization
total body PET
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2023
09 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
03
10
2023
revised:
07
11
2023
accepted:
07
11
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
entrez:
24
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
PET imaging after yttrium-90 (Y-90) radioembolization is challenging because of the low positron fraction of Y-90 (32 × 10 Two phantoms (NEMA IEC and AbdoMan phantoms, mimicking human liver) filled with Y-90 and a 4:1 sphere (tumor)-to-background ratio were scanned for 24 h with the Biograph Vision Quadra (Siemens Healthineers). Eight patients were scanned after Y-90 radioembolization (1.3-4.7 GBq) using the optimized protocol (obtained by phantom studies). The IQ, contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) and noise were evaluated for their limited and full acceptance angles, different rebinned scan durations, numbers of iterations and post-reconstruction filters. The s-value-based absorbed doses were calculated to assess their suitability for dosimetry. The phantom studies demonstrate that two iterations, five subsets and a 4 mm Gaussian filter provide a reasonable compromise between a high CRC and low noise. For a 20 min scan duration, an adequate CRC of 56% (vs. 24 h: 62%, 20 mm sphere) was obtained, and the noise was reduced by a factor of 1.4, from 40% to 29%, using the full acceptance angle. The patient scan results were consistent with those from the phantom studies, and the impacts on the absorbed doses were negligible for all of the studied parameter sets, as the maximum percentage difference was -3.89%. With 2i5s, a 4 mm filter and a scan duration of 20 min, IQ and quantification accuracy that are suitable for post-treatment dosimetry of Y-90 radioembolization can be achieved.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
PET imaging after yttrium-90 (Y-90) radioembolization is challenging because of the low positron fraction of Y-90 (32 × 10
METHODS
METHODS
Two phantoms (NEMA IEC and AbdoMan phantoms, mimicking human liver) filled with Y-90 and a 4:1 sphere (tumor)-to-background ratio were scanned for 24 h with the Biograph Vision Quadra (Siemens Healthineers). Eight patients were scanned after Y-90 radioembolization (1.3-4.7 GBq) using the optimized protocol (obtained by phantom studies). The IQ, contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) and noise were evaluated for their limited and full acceptance angles, different rebinned scan durations, numbers of iterations and post-reconstruction filters. The s-value-based absorbed doses were calculated to assess their suitability for dosimetry.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The phantom studies demonstrate that two iterations, five subsets and a 4 mm Gaussian filter provide a reasonable compromise between a high CRC and low noise. For a 20 min scan duration, an adequate CRC of 56% (vs. 24 h: 62%, 20 mm sphere) was obtained, and the noise was reduced by a factor of 1.4, from 40% to 29%, using the full acceptance angle. The patient scan results were consistent with those from the phantom studies, and the impacts on the absorbed doses were negligible for all of the studied parameter sets, as the maximum percentage difference was -3.89%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
With 2i5s, a 4 mm filter and a scan duration of 20 min, IQ and quantification accuracy that are suitable for post-treatment dosimetry of Y-90 radioembolization can be achieved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37998554
pii: diagnostics13223418
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13223418
pmc: PMC10670048
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : INST 37/1145-1 FUGG
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : EXC 2180-390900677
Références
EJNMMI Phys. 2023 May 27;10(1):33
pubmed: 37243869
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jul;43(8):1425-31
pubmed: 26631239
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Mar;50(4):1158-1167
pubmed: 36474125
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 May;48(5):1570-1584
pubmed: 33433699
J Nucl Med. 2015 Mar;56(3):333-8
pubmed: 25655623
Eur J Nucl Med. 1996 Aug;23(8):947-52
pubmed: 8753684
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Jul;49(9):3215-3225
pubmed: 35278108
J Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;56(8):1285-91
pubmed: 26135111
Z Med Phys. 2023 Oct 20;:
pubmed: 37867050
Clin Med (Lond). 2017 Oct;17(5):449-453
pubmed: 28974597
Appl Radiat Isot. 2007 Mar;65(3):318-27
pubmed: 17045483
Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Jun;33(6):633-40
pubmed: 22407156
J Nucl Med. 1999 Jan;40(1):11S-36S
pubmed: 9935083
J Nucl Med. 2006 Sep;47(9):1467-75
pubmed: 16954555
EJNMMI Res. 2017 Nov 3;7(1):88
pubmed: 29098485
EJNMMI Phys. 2022 Dec 14;9(1):87
pubmed: 36513949
Med Phys. 2016 Oct;43(10):5779
pubmed: 27782730
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Apr;49(5):1682-1699
pubmed: 35146577
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 10;16(2):e0246848
pubmed: 33566845
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55742
pubmed: 23405207
Med Phys. 2019 Jan;46(1):229-237
pubmed: 30375655
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Mar;50(4):1168-1182
pubmed: 36504278
EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Nov 8;6(1):19
pubmed: 31705215
Phys Med. 2023 Jan;105:102506
pubmed: 36538846
EJNMMI Phys. 2016 Dec;3(1):17
pubmed: 27495914
EJNMMI Phys. 2021 Nov 12;8(1):77
pubmed: 34767102
J Nucl Med. 2022 Mar;63(3):476-484
pubmed: 34301780
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Mar 4;7(1):14
pubmed: 32130554
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Nov;49(13):4652-4660
pubmed: 35876867
J Nucl Med. 2009 Mar;50(3):477-84
pubmed: 19258258
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 10;13(7):e0200488
pubmed: 29990342
Med Phys. 2014 Sep;41(9):092503
pubmed: 25186412
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Sep 08;67(18):
pubmed: 36001985
J Nucl Med. 2022 Jul;63(7):1101-1107
pubmed: 34795015