Lovisa Jessen, Selma Curkic Kapidzic, Johan Gustafsson, Erik Larsson, Michael Ljungberg, Mattias Sandström, Johanna Dalmo, Linn Hagmarker, Cecilia Hindorf, Jan Taprogge, Jonathan Gear, Glenn Flux, Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner
{"title":"作为多中心肾剂量测定基础的177lu - spect图像定量验证方案。","authors":"Lovisa Jessen, Selma Curkic Kapidzic, Johan Gustafsson, Erik Larsson, Michael Ljungberg, Mattias Sandström, Johanna Dalmo, Linn Hagmarker, Cecilia Hindorf, Jan Taprogge, Jonathan Gear, Glenn Flux, Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner","doi":"10.1088/1361-6560/add708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective</i>. Multicentre studies in molecular radiotherapy face challenges in ensuring the comparability of dosimetry results. The aim of this study was to develop a validation protocol to achieve equivalent<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT quantification across centres, consisting of a test exercise in combination with an action level.<i>Approach</i>.<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT/CT imaging of 3D-printed kidney phantoms with non-uniform activity distributions was conducted at five hospitals in Sweden and the UK. In total, 12 quantification systems (QSs) were included, where a QS was defined as the combination of a given camera system, reconstruction method and image-analysis method. The accuracy of image-based estimates of the activity concentration was investigated for three approaches to multicentre dosimetry: one site-specific, and two variants of centralised approaches. For the site-specific approach, the reference value was blinded to the evaluating operators. Prior to the evaluation, the participants agreed on an action level, specified as an obtained deviation larger than ±10% from the reference value. Sites responsible for a QS that yielded larger deviations, and therefore did not comply, were required to present an action plan, i.e., a plan for further method optimisation.<i>Main results</i>. For the site-specific approach, deviations larger than 10% were obtained for six out of 12 QS (range -11% to +27%). Action plans were presented for these QS and was implemented by one site (two QS). For the two variants of centralised approaches, where nine QS were included in total, deviations of within 10% were obtained for nine and seven QS, respectively.<i>Significance</i>. A quantification test combined with an action level can serve as an initial validation to enable further development and to achieve equivalent<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT quantification across sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":20185,"journal":{"name":"Physics in medicine and biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A validation protocol for<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT image quantification as a basis for multi-centre kidney dosimetry.\",\"authors\":\"Lovisa Jessen, Selma Curkic Kapidzic, Johan Gustafsson, Erik Larsson, Michael Ljungberg, Mattias Sandström, Johanna Dalmo, Linn Hagmarker, Cecilia Hindorf, Jan Taprogge, Jonathan Gear, Glenn Flux, Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/1361-6560/add708\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Objective</i>. Multicentre studies in molecular radiotherapy face challenges in ensuring the comparability of dosimetry results. The aim of this study was to develop a validation protocol to achieve equivalent<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT quantification across centres, consisting of a test exercise in combination with an action level.<i>Approach</i>.<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT/CT imaging of 3D-printed kidney phantoms with non-uniform activity distributions was conducted at five hospitals in Sweden and the UK. In total, 12 quantification systems (QSs) were included, where a QS was defined as the combination of a given camera system, reconstruction method and image-analysis method. The accuracy of image-based estimates of the activity concentration was investigated for three approaches to multicentre dosimetry: one site-specific, and two variants of centralised approaches. For the site-specific approach, the reference value was blinded to the evaluating operators. Prior to the evaluation, the participants agreed on an action level, specified as an obtained deviation larger than ±10% from the reference value. Sites responsible for a QS that yielded larger deviations, and therefore did not comply, were required to present an action plan, i.e., a plan for further method optimisation.<i>Main results</i>. For the site-specific approach, deviations larger than 10% were obtained for six out of 12 QS (range -11% to +27%). Action plans were presented for these QS and was implemented by one site (two QS). For the two variants of centralised approaches, where nine QS were included in total, deviations of within 10% were obtained for nine and seven QS, respectively.<i>Significance</i>. A quantification test combined with an action level can serve as an initial validation to enable further development and to achieve equivalent<sup>177</sup>Lu-SPECT quantification across sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics in medicine and biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physics in medicine and biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/add708\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics in medicine and biology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/add708","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A validation protocol for177Lu-SPECT image quantification as a basis for multi-centre kidney dosimetry.
Objective. Multicentre studies in molecular radiotherapy face challenges in ensuring the comparability of dosimetry results. The aim of this study was to develop a validation protocol to achieve equivalent177Lu-SPECT quantification across centres, consisting of a test exercise in combination with an action level.Approach.177Lu-SPECT/CT imaging of 3D-printed kidney phantoms with non-uniform activity distributions was conducted at five hospitals in Sweden and the UK. In total, 12 quantification systems (QSs) were included, where a QS was defined as the combination of a given camera system, reconstruction method and image-analysis method. The accuracy of image-based estimates of the activity concentration was investigated for three approaches to multicentre dosimetry: one site-specific, and two variants of centralised approaches. For the site-specific approach, the reference value was blinded to the evaluating operators. Prior to the evaluation, the participants agreed on an action level, specified as an obtained deviation larger than ±10% from the reference value. Sites responsible for a QS that yielded larger deviations, and therefore did not comply, were required to present an action plan, i.e., a plan for further method optimisation.Main results. For the site-specific approach, deviations larger than 10% were obtained for six out of 12 QS (range -11% to +27%). Action plans were presented for these QS and was implemented by one site (two QS). For the two variants of centralised approaches, where nine QS were included in total, deviations of within 10% were obtained for nine and seven QS, respectively.Significance. A quantification test combined with an action level can serve as an initial validation to enable further development and to achieve equivalent177Lu-SPECT quantification across sites.
期刊介绍:
The development and application of theoretical, computational and experimental physics to medicine, physiology and biology. Topics covered are: therapy physics (including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation); biomedical imaging (e.g. x-ray, magnetic resonance, ultrasound, optical and nuclear imaging); image-guided interventions; image reconstruction and analysis (including kinetic modelling); artificial intelligence in biomedical physics and analysis; nanoparticles in imaging and therapy; radiobiology; radiation protection and patient dose monitoring; radiation dosimetry