Search

Abstract Background Accurate quantification of radioactivity in a source of interest relies on accurate registration between SPECT and anatomical images, and appropriate correction of partial volume effects (PVEs). For small volumes, exact registration between the two imaging modalities and recovery factors used to correct for PVE are unreliable. There is currently no guidance relating to quantification or the associated uncertainty estimation for small volumes. Material and methods A method for quantification of small sources of interest is proposed, which uses multiple oversized volumes of interest. The method was applied to three Na[131I]I activity distributions where a Na[131I]I capsule was situated within a cylindrical phantom containing either zero background, uniform background or non-uniform background and to a scenario with small lesions placed in an anthropomorphic phantom. The Na[131I]I capsule and lesions were quantified using the proposed method and compared with measurements made using two alternative quantification methods. The proposed method was also applied to assess the absorbed dose delivered to a bone metastasis following [131I]mIBG therapy for neuroblastoma including the associated uncertainty estimation. Results The method is accurate across a range of activities and in varied radioactivity distributions. Median percentage errors using the proposed method in no background, uniform backgrounds and non-uniform backgrounds were − 0.4%, − 0.3% and 1.7% with median associated uncertainties of 1.4%, 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively. The technique is more accurate and robust when compared to currently available alternative methods. Conclusions The proposed method provides a reliable and accurate method for quantification of sources of interest, which are less than three times the spatial resolution of the imaging system. The method may be of use in absorbed dose calculation in cases of bone metastasis, lung metastasis or thyroid remnants.

Abstract The aim of this standard operational procedure is to standardize the methodology employed for the evaluation of pre- and post-treatment absorbed dose calculations in 90Y microsphere liver radioembolization. Basic assumptions include the permanent trapping of microspheres, the local energy deposition method for voxel dosimetry, and the patient–relative calibration method for activity quantification.The identity of 99mTc albumin macro-aggregates (MAA) and 90Y microsphere biodistribution is also assumed. The large observed discrepancies in some patients between 99mTc-MAA predictions and actual 90Y microsphere distributions for lesions is discussed. Absorbed dose predictions to whole non-tumoural liver are considered more reliable and the basic predictors of toxicity. Treatment planning based on mean absorbed dose delivered to the whole non-tumoural liver is advised, except in super-selective treatments. Given the potential mismatch between MAA simulation and actual therapy, absorbed doses should be calculated both pre- and post-therapy. Distinct evaluation between target tumours and non-tumoural tissue, including lungs in cases of lung shunt, are vital for proper optimization of therapy. Dosimetry should be performed first according to a mean absorbed dose approach, with an optional, but important, voxel level evaluation. Fully corrected 99mTc-MAA Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) and 90Y TOF PET/CT are regarded as optimal acquisition methodologies, but, for institutes where SPECT/CT is not available, non-attenuation corrected 99mTc-MAA SPECT may be used. This offers better planning quality than non dosimetric methods such as Body Surface Area (BSA) or mono-compartmental dosimetry. Quantitative 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT can be used if dedicated correction methods are available. The proposed methodology is feasible with standard camera software and a spreadsheet. Available commercial or free software can help facilitate the process and improve calculation time.

Abstract The purpose of the EANM Dosimetry Committee Series on “Standard Operational Procedures for Dosimetry” (SOP) is to provide advice to scientists and clinicians on how to perform patient-specific absorbed dose assessments. This SOP describes image and data acquisition parameters and dosimetry calculations to determine the absorbed doses delivered to whole-body, tumour and normal organs following a therapeutic administration of 131I mIBG for the treatment of neuroblastoma or adult neuroendocrine tumours. Recommendations are based on evidence in recent literature where available and on expert opinion within the community. This SOP is intended to promote standardisation of practice within the community and as such is based on the facilities and expertise that should be available to any centre able to perform specialised treatments with radiopharmaceuticals and patient-specific dosimetry. A clinical example is given to demonstrate the application of the absorbed dose calculations.

Abstract Background This inter-comparison exercise was performed to demonstrate the variability of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging for lutetium-177 (177Lu) in current clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of using international inter-comparison exercises as a means to ensure consistency between clinical sites whilst enabling the sites to use their own choice of quantitative imaging protocols, specific to their systems. Dual-compartment concentric spherical sources of accurately known activity concentrations were prepared and sent to seven European clinical sites. The site staff were not aware of the true volumes or activity within the sources—they performed SPECT/CT imaging of the source, positioned within a water-filled phantom, using their own choice of parameters and reported their estimate of the activities within the source. Results The volumes reported by the participants for the inner section of the source were all within 29% of the true value and within 60% of the true value for the outer section. The activities reported by the participants for the inner section of the source were all within 20% of the true value, whilst those reported for the outer section were up to 83% different to the true value. Conclusions A variety of calibration and segmentation methods were used by the participants for this exercise which demonstrated the variability of quantitative imaging across clinical sites. This paper presents a method to assess consistency between sites using different calibration and segmentation methods.