Abstract

BackgroundCamera calibration, which translates reconstructed count map into absolute activity map, is a prerequisite procedure for quantitative SPECT imaging. Both planar and tomographic scans using different phantom geometries have been proposed for the determination of the camera calibration factor (CF). However, there is no consensus on which approach is the best. The aim of this study is to evaluate all these calibration methods, compare their performance, and propose a practical and accurate calibration method for SPECT quantitation of therapeutic radioisotopes. Twenty-one phantom experiments (Siemens Symbia SPECT/CT) and 12 Monte Carlo simulations (GATE v6.1) using three therapy isotopes (131I, 177Lu, and 188Re) have been performed. The following phantom geometries were used: (1) planar scans of point source in air (PS), (2) tomographic scans of insert(s) filled with activity placed in non-radioactive water (HS + CB), (3) tomographic scans of hot insert(s) in radioactive water (HS + WB), and (4) tomographic scans of cylinders uniformly filled with activity (HC). Tomographic data were reconstructed using OSEM with CT-based attenuation correction and triple energy window (TEW) scatter correction, and CF was determined using total counts in the reconstructed image, while for planar scans, the photopeak counts, corrected for scatter and background with TEW, were used. Additionally, for simulated data, CF obtained from primary photons only was analyzed.ResultsFor phantom experiments, CF obtained from PS and HS + WB agreed to within 6% (below 3% if experiments performed on the same day are considered). However, CF from HS + CB exceeded those from PS by 4–12%. Similar trend was found in simulation studies. Analysis of CFs from primary photons helped us to understand this discrepancy. It was due to underestimation of scatter by the TEW method, further enhanced by attenuation correction. This effect becomes less important when the source is distributed over the entire phantom volume (HS + WB and HC).ConclusionsCamera CF could be determined using planar scans of a point source, provided that the scatter and background contributions are removed, for example using the clinically available TEW method. This approach is simple and yet provides CF with sufficient accuracy (~ 5%) to be used in clinics for radiotracer quantification.

Highlights

  • Camera calibration, which translates reconstructed count map into absolute activity map, is a prerequisite procedure for quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging

  • The phantoms used in these simulations corresponded to a point source scanned in air, a 100-mL sphere filled with activity placed at the center of a cylinder filled with cold and warm water

  • There is no consensus about the calibration method, both planar and tomographic scans have been performed and the resulting calibration factor (CF) applied in research and clinical studies

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Camera calibration, which translates reconstructed count map into absolute activity map, is a prerequisite procedure for quantitative SPECT imaging Both planar and tomographic scans using different phantom geometries have been proposed for the determination of the camera calibration factor (CF). The assessment of tumor burden, prediction of potentially critical organs and normal tissue toxicities, and calculation of the radiation dose are all necessary elements of the personalized, image-based therapy planning as well as evaluation of patient’s response to this therapy They all require accurate absolute quantification of the amount of the radioactive material that is localized in tumor(s) and critical organs and characterization of its changes over time (biokinetics) [6, 7]. With the introduction of hybrid SPECT/CT imaging systems and the development of statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms, quantitative reconstructions have become available for the majority of the commercial SPECT/CT cameras [8,9,10]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.