UNLABELLED: (131)I radionuclide therapy studies have not shown a strong relationship between tumor absorbed dose and response, possibly due to inaccuracies in activity quantification and dose estimation. The goal of this work was to establish the accuracy of (131)I activity quantification and absorbed dose estimation when patient-specific, 3-dimensional (3D) methods are used for SPECT reconstruction and for absorbed dose calculation. METHODS: Clinically realistic voxel-phantom simulations were used in the evaluation of activity quantification and dosimetry. SPECT reconstruction was performed using an ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm with compensation for scatter, attenuation, and 3D detector response. Based on the SPECT image and a patient-specific density map derived from CT, 3D dosimetry was performed using a newly implemented Monte Carlo code. Dosimetry was evaluated by comparing mean absorbed dose estimates calculated directly from the defined phantom activity map with those calculated from the SPECT image of the phantom. Finally, the 3D methods were applied to a radioimmunotherapy patient, and the mean tumor absorbed dose from the new calculation was compared with that from conventional dosimetry obtained from conjugate-view imaging. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of the SPECT-based absorbed dose estimates in the phantom was >12% for targets down to 16 mL and up to 35% for the smallest 7-mL tumor. To improve accuracy in the smallest tumor, more OSEM iterations may be needed. The relative SD from multiple realizations was <3% for all targets except for the smallest tumor. For the patient, the mean tumor absorbed dose estimate from the new Monte Carlo calculation was 7% higher than that from conventional dosimetry. CONCLUSION: For target sizes down to 16 mL, highly accurate and precise dosimetry can be obtained with 3D methods for SPECT reconstruction and absorbed dose estimation. In the future, these methods can be applied to patients to potentially establish correlations between tumor regression and the absorbed dose statistics from 3D dosimetry.
UNLABELLED: (131)I radionuclide therapy studies have not shown a strong relationship between tumor absorbed dose and response, possibly due to inaccuracies in activity quantification and dose estimation. The goal of this work was to establish the accuracy of (131)I activity quantification and absorbed dose estimation when patient-specific, 3-dimensional (3D) methods are used for SPECT reconstruction and for absorbed dose calculation. METHODS: Clinically realistic voxel-phantom simulations were used in the evaluation of activity quantification and dosimetry. SPECT reconstruction was performed using an ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm with compensation for scatter, attenuation, and 3D detector response. Based on the SPECT image and a patient-specific density map derived from CT, 3D dosimetry was performed using a newly implemented Monte Carlo code. Dosimetry was evaluated by comparing mean absorbed dose estimates calculated directly from the defined phantom activity map with those calculated from the SPECT image of the phantom. Finally, the 3D methods were applied to a radioimmunotherapy patient, and the mean tumor absorbed dose from the new calculation was compared with that from conventional dosimetry obtained from conjugate-view imaging. RESULTS: Overall, the accuracy of the SPECT-based absorbed dose estimates in the phantom was >12% for targets down to 16 mL and up to 35% for the smallest 7-mL tumor. To improve accuracy in the smallest tumor, more OSEM iterations may be needed. The relative SD from multiple realizations was <3% for all targets except for the smallest tumor. For the patient, the mean tumor absorbed dose estimate from the new Monte Carlo calculation was 7% higher than that from conventional dosimetry. CONCLUSION: For target sizes down to 16 mL, highly accurate and precise dosimetry can be obtained with 3D methods for SPECT reconstruction and absorbed dose estimation. In the future, these methods can be applied to patients to potentially establish correlations between tumor regression and the absorbed dose statistics from 3D dosimetry.
Authors: Mark S Kaminski; Melissa Tuck; Judith Estes; Arne Kolstad; Charles W Ross; Kenneth Zasadny; Denise Regan; Paul Kison; Susan Fisher; Stewart Kroll; Richard L Wahl Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M S Kaminski; K R Zasadny; I R Francis; M C Fenner; C W Ross; A W Milik; J Estes; M Tuck; D Regan; S Fisher; S D Glenn; R L Wahl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G L DeNardo; S J DeNardo; D S Goldstein; L A Kroger; K R Lamborn; N B Levy; J P McGahan; Q Salako; S Shen; J P Lewis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yuni K Dewaraja; Eric C Frey; George Sgouros; A Bertrand Brill; Peter Roberson; Pat B Zanzonico; Michael Ljungberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Glenn D Flux; Masud Haq; Sarah J Chittenden; Susan Buckley; Cecilia Hindorf; Kate Newbold; Clive L Harmer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236