An international phantom study of inter-site variability in Technetium-99m image quantification: analyses from the TARGET radioembolization study.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Grace Keane, Rob van Rooij, Marnix Lam, S Cheenu Kappadath, Bilal Kovan, Stephanie Leon, Matthew Dreher, Kirk Fowers, Hugo de Jong
{"title":"An international phantom study of inter-site variability in Technetium-99m image quantification: analyses from the TARGET radioembolization study.","authors":"Grace Keane, Rob van Rooij, Marnix Lam, S Cheenu Kappadath, Bilal Kovan, Stephanie Leon, Matthew Dreher, Kirk Fowers, Hugo de Jong","doi":"10.1186/s40658-024-00647-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Personalised multi-compartment dosimetry based on [<sup>99m</sup>Tc]Tc-MAA is a valuable tool for planning <sup>90</sup>Y radioembolization treatments. The establishment and effective application of dose-effect relationships in yttrium-90 (<sup>90</sup>Y) radioembolization requires [<sup>99m</sup>Tc]Tc-MAA SPECT quantification ideally independent of clinical site. The purpose of this multi-centre phantom study was to evaluate inter-site variability of [<sup>99m</sup>Tc]Tc-MAA imaging and evaluate a standardised imaging protocol. Data was obtained from the TARGET study, an international, retrospective multi-centre study including 14 sites across 8 countries. The impact of imaging related factors was estimated using a NEMA IQ phantom (representing the liver), and a uniformly filled cylindrical phantom (representing the lungs). Imaging was performed using site-specific protocols and a standardized protocol. In addition, the impact of implementing key image corrections (scatter and attenuation correction) in the site-specific protocols was investigated. Inter-site dosimetry accuracy was evaluated by comparing computed Lung Shunt Fraction (LSF) measured using planar imaging of the cylindrical and NEMA phantom, and contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) measured using SPECT imaging of the NEMA IQ phantom.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the LSF, inter-site variation with planar site-specific protocols was minimal, as determined by comparing computed LSF between sites (interquartile range 9.6-10.1%). A standardised protocol did not improve variation (interquartile range 8.4-9.0%) but did improve mean accuracy compared to the site-specific protocols (5.0% error for standardised protocol vs 8.8% error for site-specific protocols). Regarding the CRC, inter-system variation was notable for site-specific SPECT protocols and could not be improved by the standardised protocol (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.5-0.7 and 0.6-0.8 respectively), however the standardised protocol did improve accuracy of sphere:background determination. Implementation of key image corrections did improve inter-site variation (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.6-0.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Eliminating sources of variability in image corrections between imaging protocols reduces inter-site variation in quantification. A standardised protocol was not able to improve consistency of LSF or CRC but was able to improve accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11559,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI Physics","volume":"11 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11136909/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-024-00647-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Personalised multi-compartment dosimetry based on [99mTc]Tc-MAA is a valuable tool for planning 90Y radioembolization treatments. The establishment and effective application of dose-effect relationships in yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization requires [99mTc]Tc-MAA SPECT quantification ideally independent of clinical site. The purpose of this multi-centre phantom study was to evaluate inter-site variability of [99mTc]Tc-MAA imaging and evaluate a standardised imaging protocol. Data was obtained from the TARGET study, an international, retrospective multi-centre study including 14 sites across 8 countries. The impact of imaging related factors was estimated using a NEMA IQ phantom (representing the liver), and a uniformly filled cylindrical phantom (representing the lungs). Imaging was performed using site-specific protocols and a standardized protocol. In addition, the impact of implementing key image corrections (scatter and attenuation correction) in the site-specific protocols was investigated. Inter-site dosimetry accuracy was evaluated by comparing computed Lung Shunt Fraction (LSF) measured using planar imaging of the cylindrical and NEMA phantom, and contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) measured using SPECT imaging of the NEMA IQ phantom.

Results: Regarding the LSF, inter-site variation with planar site-specific protocols was minimal, as determined by comparing computed LSF between sites (interquartile range 9.6-10.1%). A standardised protocol did not improve variation (interquartile range 8.4-9.0%) but did improve mean accuracy compared to the site-specific protocols (5.0% error for standardised protocol vs 8.8% error for site-specific protocols). Regarding the CRC, inter-system variation was notable for site-specific SPECT protocols and could not be improved by the standardised protocol (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.5-0.7 and 0.6-0.8 respectively), however the standardised protocol did improve accuracy of sphere:background determination. Implementation of key image corrections did improve inter-site variation (CRC interquartile range for 37 mm sphere 0.6-0.7).

Conclusion: Eliminating sources of variability in image corrections between imaging protocols reduces inter-site variation in quantification. A standardised protocol was not able to improve consistency of LSF or CRC but was able to improve accuracy.

关于锝-99m 图像定量的机构间变异性的国际模型研究:TARGET 放射性栓塞研究分析。
背景:基于[99m锝]锝-MAA的个性化多室剂量测定是规划90Y放射性栓塞治疗的重要工具。在钇-90(90Y)放射栓塞治疗中建立并有效应用剂量效应关系需要[99m锝]锝-MAA SPECT 定量,理想的情况是不受临床部位的影响。这项多中心模型研究旨在评估[99m锝]锝-MAA成像的部位间变异性,并评估标准化成像方案。数据来自 TARGET 研究,这是一项国际性、回顾性多中心研究,包括 8 个国家的 14 个研究机构。使用一个NEMA IQ模型(代表肝脏)和一个均匀填充的圆柱形模型(代表肺部)估算了成像相关因素的影响。成像采用了针对特定地点的方案和标准化方案。此外,还研究了在特定部位方案中实施关键图像校正(散射和衰减校正)的影响。通过比较使用圆柱形和 NEMA 模体的平面成像测量的肺分流分数(LSF)和使用 NEMA IQ 模体的 SPECT 成像测量的对比恢复系数(CRC),评估了不同部位之间剂量测定的准确性:在 LSF 方面,通过比较不同部位的计算 LSF(四分位间范围为 9.6%-10.1%),确定平面部位特定方案的部位间差异极小。标准化方案并没有改善差异(四分位数范围为 8.4-9.0%),但与特定地点方案相比,平均准确度有所提高(标准化方案误差为 5.0%,特定地点方案误差为 8.8%)。关于 CRC,特定部位 SPECT 方案的系统间差异显著,标准化方案无法改善(37 毫米球体的 CRC 四分位数范围分别为 0.5-0.7 和 0.6-0.8),但标准化方案确实提高了球体:背景确定的准确性。关键图像校正的实施确实改善了站点间的差异(37 毫米球体的 CRC 四分位数间距为 0.6-0.7):结论:消除不同成像方案之间图像校正的变异源可减少定量的站间差异。标准化方案无法提高 LSF 或 CRC 的一致性,但能够提高准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EJNMMI Physics
EJNMMI Physics Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EJNMMI Physics is an international platform for scientists, users and adopters of nuclear medicine with a particular interest in physics matters. As a companion journal to the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, this journal has a multi-disciplinary approach and welcomes original materials and studies with a focus on applied physics and mathematics as well as imaging systems engineering and prototyping in nuclear medicine. This includes physics-driven approaches or algorithms supported by physics that foster early clinical adoption of nuclear medicine imaging and therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信