Accuracy of 177Lu activity quantification in SPECT imaging: a phantom study

47Citations
Citations of this article
104Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study is to assess accuracy of activity quantification of 177Lu studies performed according to recommendations provided by the committee on Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) pamphlets 23 and 26. The performances of two scatter correction and three segmentation methods were compared. Additionally, the accuracy of tomographic and planar methods for determination of the camera normalization factor (CNF) was evaluated. Eight phantoms containing inserts of different sizes and shapes placed in air, water, and radioactive background were scanned using a Siemens SymbiaT SPECT/CT camera. Planar and tomographic scans with 177Lu sources were used to measure CNF. Images were reconstructed with our SPEQToR software using resolution recovery, attenuation, and two scatter correction methods (analytical photon distribution interpolated (APDI) and triple energy window (TEW)). Segmentation was performed using a fixed threshold method for both air and cold water scans. For hot water experiments three segmentation methods were compared as folows: a 40% fixed threshold, segmentation based on CT images, and our iterative adaptive dual thresholding (IADT). Quantification error, defined as the percent difference between experimental and true activities, was evaluated. Results: Quantification error for scans in air was better for TEW scatter correction (<6%) than for APDI (<11%). This trend was reversed for scans in water (<10% for APDI and <14% for TEW). For hot water, the best results (<18% for small objects and <5% for objects >100 ml) were obtained when APDI and IADT were used for scatter correction and segmentation, respectively. Additionally, we showed that planar acquisitions with scatter correction and tomographic scans provide similar CNF values. This is an important finding because planar acquisitions are easier to perform than tomographic scans. TEW and APDI resulted in similar quantification errors with APDI showing a small advantage for objects placed in medium with non-uniform density. Conclusions: Following the MIRD recommendations for data acquisition and reconstruction resulted in accurate activity quantification (errors <5% for large objects). However, techniques for better organ/tumor segmentation must still be developed.

Figures

  • Table 1 Energy window used in the 177Lu phantom experiments
  • Fig. 1 Photos of the phantoms used in the experiments
  • Table 2 Summary of the phantoms which were used in the experiments performed to test the accuracy of quantification
  • Table 3 Details of planar and tomographic acquisitions performed to determine the CNF for 177Lu
  • Fig. 2 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in air (a), and error distribution for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b). The horizontal dashed lines in (a) mark the range (maximum and minimum) of the deviations from the truth. The boxes in (b) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions
  • Fig. 3 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in cold water and error distribution (b) for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b). The horizontal dashed lines in (a) mark the maximum and minimum deviations from the truth. The boxes in (b) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions
  • Fig. 4 Quantification errors (with uncertainties) for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in warm water and segmented with three different methods: 40% fixed threshold (a), CT based (b), and IADT (c). The error distribution for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (d). The horizontal lines in (a–c) mark the maximum and minimum deviations from the truth. The boxes in (d) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions
  • Fig. 5 Camera normalization factors (CNF) 177Lu obtained using different methods. The horizontal dashed line represents the average value as determined from the planar method 2 and the tomographic acquisitions

References Powered by Scopus

A Practical Method for Position-Dependent Compton-Scatter Correction in Single Photon Emission CT

524Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

MIRD pamphlet no. 23: Quantitative SPECT for patient-specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy

302Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quantitative accuracy of clinical <sup>99m</sup>Tc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction

208Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

EANM dosimetry committee recommendations for dosimetry of 177Lu-labelled somatostatin-receptor- and PSMA-targeting ligands

120Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A Review of Deep-Learning-Based Approaches for Attenuation Correction in Positron Emission Tomography

85Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Subcellular targeting of theranostic radionuclides

70Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Uribe, C. F., Esquinas, P. L., Tanguay, J., Gonzalez, M., Gaudin, E., Beauregard, J. M., & Celler, A. (2017). Accuracy of 177Lu activity quantification in SPECT imaging: a phantom study. EJNMMI Physics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-016-0170-3

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2508162432

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 36

58%

Researcher 16

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 7

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Physics and Astronomy 35

56%

Medicine and Dentistry 14

23%

Computer Science 7

11%

Engineering 6

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0