PURPOSE: Freehand SPECT is a 3-D tomographic imaging modality based on data acquisition with a hand-held detector that is moved freely, in contrast to conventional, fixed gamma camera systems. In this pilot study, the feasibility of freehand SPECT for 3-D lymphatic mapping in breast cancer was evaluated. METHODS: A total of 85 patients (age: 29-88 years) with an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and no clinical evidence of nodal involvement prospectively underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. Preoperative lymphatic mapping (35-87 MBq (99m)Tc-Nanocoll) included tomographic imaging with a SPECT/CT device (Siemens Symbia T6) serving as reference. Initially, the freehand SPECT approach was assessed in a pilot study consisting of 50 patients. The quality of each freehand SPECT acquisition was assessed and ranked as good, intermediate or poor. In another series comprising a further 35 patients (validation study), a guidance system for the acquisition was implemented based on the results of the pilot study, ensuring acquisitions with good quality. For 3-D tomographic image reconstruction, ad hoc models and iterative reconstruction algorithms were used in all 85 patients. To allow for adequate comparison, SPECT/CT data and freehand SPECT data were registered within the same coordinate system. RESULTS: In the pilot study, freehand SPECT enabled mapping of 24 of 83 SLNs in 20 of 44 patients (3 dropouts, 3 patients without SLN either in SPECT/CT or in freehand SPECT). Using SPECT/CT as reference, the accuracy of freehand SPECT was 77.8% (7/9 nodes) in scans with good quality, while for intermediate and poor quality scans, the accuracy was reduced to 34.3 and 12.8%, respectively. In the validation study, quality feedback improved the results significantly and freehand SPECT enabled the mapping of at least one SLN in 87.5% of the patients (28/32 - 3 dropouts). Compared to the reference method, freehand SPECT showed a sensitivity of 83.3% (35/42 nodes). False-negative findings were related to insufficient scanning time, insufficient coverage of the axillary region, close proximity of the SLN to the injection site and low tracer uptake in the SLNs. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study, we could demonstrate that 3-D localization of SLNs is feasible using freehand SPECT technology. Prerequisites for acquisition of a good scan quality, most likely allowing precise SLN mapping, have been defined. This approach has high potential to allow image-guided biopsy and further standardization of SLN dissection, thus bringing 3-D nuclear imaging into the operating room.
PURPOSE: Freehand SPECT is a 3-D tomographic imaging modality based on data acquisition with a hand-held detector that is moved freely, in contrast to conventional, fixed gamma camera systems. In this pilot study, the feasibility of freehand SPECT for 3-D lymphatic mapping in breast cancer was evaluated. METHODS: A total of 85 patients (age: 29-88 years) with an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer and no clinical evidence of nodal involvement prospectively underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. Preoperative lymphatic mapping (35-87 MBq (99m)Tc-Nanocoll) included tomographic imaging with a SPECT/CT device (Siemens Symbia T6) serving as reference. Initially, the freehand SPECT approach was assessed in a pilot study consisting of 50 patients. The quality of each freehand SPECT acquisition was assessed and ranked as good, intermediate or poor. In another series comprising a further 35 patients (validation study), a guidance system for the acquisition was implemented based on the results of the pilot study, ensuring acquisitions with good quality. For 3-D tomographic image reconstruction, ad hoc models and iterative reconstruction algorithms were used in all 85 patients. To allow for adequate comparison, SPECT/CT data and freehand SPECT data were registered within the same coordinate system. RESULTS: In the pilot study, freehand SPECT enabled mapping of 24 of 83 SLNs in 20 of 44 patients (3 dropouts, 3 patients without SLN either in SPECT/CT or in freehand SPECT). Using SPECT/CT as reference, the accuracy of freehand SPECT was 77.8% (7/9 nodes) in scans with good quality, while for intermediate and poor quality scans, the accuracy was reduced to 34.3 and 12.8%, respectively. In the validation study, quality feedback improved the results significantly and freehand SPECT enabled the mapping of at least one SLN in 87.5% of the patients (28/32 - 3 dropouts). Compared to the reference method, freehand SPECT showed a sensitivity of 83.3% (35/42 nodes). False-negative findings were related to insufficient scanning time, insufficient coverage of the axillary region, close proximity of the SLN to the injection site and low tracer uptake in the SLNs. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study, we could demonstrate that 3-D localization of SLNs is feasible using freehand SPECT technology. Prerequisites for acquisition of a good scan quality, most likely allowing precise SLN mapping, have been defined. This approach has high potential to allow image-guided biopsy and further standardization of SLN dissection, thus bringing 3-D nuclear imaging into the operating room.
Authors: G Cserni; I Amendoeira; N Apostolikas; J P Bellocq; S Bianchi; G Bussolati; W Boecker; B Borisch; C E Connolly; T Decker; P Dervan; M Drijkoningen; I O Ellis; C W Elston; V Eusebi; D Faverly; P Heikkila; R Holland; H Kerner; J Kulka; J Jacquemier; M Lacerda; J Martinez-Penuela; C De Miguel; J L Peterse; F Rank; P Regitnig; A Reiner; A Sapino; B Sigal-Zafrani; A M Tanous; S Thorstenson; E Zozaya; C A Wells Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Thorsten Kuehn; Andreas Bembenek; Thomas Decker; Dieter Ludwig Munz; Marie-Luise Sautter-Bihl; Michael Untch; Diethelm Wallwiener Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Bin B R Kroon; Cornelis A Hoefnagel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marion De Jong; Roelf Valkema; Francois Jamar; Larry K Kvols; Dik J Kwekkeboom; Wout A P Breeman; Willem H Bakker; Chuck Smith; Stanislas Pauwels; Eric P Krenning Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: O Schillaci; G D'Errico; R Scafè; A Soluri; N Burgio; A Santagata; A Spanu; A M Mangano; V David; A Schiaratura; F Scopinaro Journal: Tumori Date: 2002 May-Jun
Authors: S van Esser; M Hobbelink; J W Van Isselt; W P Th M Mali; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Andreas Schnelzer; Asli Okur; Alexandra Ehlerding; Stefan Paepke; Klemens Scheidhauer; Marion Kiechle Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Domenico Rubello; Patrick M Colletti; Remco de Bree; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Giammarile; Omgo E Nieweg; Julien Dubreuil; Alessandro Testori; Riccardo A Audisio; Odysseas Zoras; Michael Lassmann; Annette H Chakera; Roger Uren; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Ken Herrmann; Alexander Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Eva Geissinger; Vanessa Wild; Stefan Hartmann; Constantin Lapa; Christian Linz; Urs Müller-Richter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marco Esposito; Benjamin Busam; Christoph Hennersperger; Julia Rackerseder; Nassir Navab; Benjamin Frisch Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Matthias N van Oosterom; Hervé Simon; Laurent Mengus; Mick M Welling; Henk G van der Poel; Nynke S van den Berg; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-28