Image fusion analysis of (99m)Tc-HYNIC-Tyr(3)-octreotide SPECT and diagnostic CT using an immobilisation device with external markers in patients with endocrine tumours.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the value of multimodality imaging using a novel repositioning device with external markers for fusion of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and computed tomography (CT) images. The additional benefit derived from this methodological approach was analysed in comparison with SPECT and diagnostic CT alone in terms of detection rate, reliability and anatomical assignment of abnormal findings with SPECT.
METHODS: Fifty-three patients (30 males, 23 females) with known or suspected endocrine tumours were studied. Clinical indications for somatostatin receptor (SSTR) scintigraphy (SPECT/CT image fusion) included staging of newly diagnosed tumours (n=14) and detection of unknown primary tumour in the presence of clinical and/or biochemical suspicion of neuroendocrine malignancy (n=20). Follow-up studies after therapy were performed in 19 patients. A mean activity of 400 MBq of (99m)Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-Tyr(3)-octreotide was given intravenously. SPECT using a dual-detector scintillation camera and diagnostic multi-detector CT were sequentially performed. To ensure reproducible positioning, patients were fixed in an individualised vacuum mattress with modality-specific external markers for co-registration. SPECT and CT data were initially interpreted separately and the fused images were interpreted jointly in consensus by nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology physicians.
RESULTS: SPECT was true-positive (TP) in 18 patients, true-negative (TN) in 16, false-negative (FN) in ten and false-positive (FP) in nine; CT was TP in 18 patients, TN in 21, FP in ten and FN in four. With image fusion (SPECT and CT), the scan result was TP in 27 patients (50.9%), TN in 25 patients (47.2%) and FN in one patient, this FN result being caused by multiple small liver metastases; sensitivity was 95% and specificity, 100%. The difference between SPECT and SPECT/CT was statistically as significant as the difference between CT and SPECT/CT image fusion (P<0.001). Twenty-seven abnormal SPECT findings in 17 patients could not be initially assigned to organs, but were clearly delineated after image fusion. In 21 patients (40%), clinically relevant information was obtained by image fusion as compared with SPECT alone.
CONCLUSION: Co-registration of SPECT and diagnostic CT using a cost-effective immobilisation device provides excellent accuracy for tumour detection of endocrine malignancies and is superior to SPECT and CT alone. Image fusion reduces false positive results and can detect additional lesions. Anatomical information provided by CT enables precise localisation of abnormalities observed in SPECT.