Jianting Yue1, Thibault Mauxion2, Diane K Reyes1, Martin A Lodge1, Robert F Hobbs3, Xing Rong4, Yinfeng Dong1, Joseph M Herman5, Richard L Wahl6, Jean-François H Geschwind7, Eric C Frey1. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287. 2. Biocompatibles UK Ltd, A BTG Group Company, Camberley, GU15 3YL, United Kingdom. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287 and Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60192. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 06310. 7. Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres may be optimized with patient-specific pretherapy treatment planning. Dose verification and validation of treatment planning methods require quantitative imaging of the post-therapy distribution of yttrium-90 (Y-90). Methods for quantitative imaging of Y-90 using both bremsstrahlung SPECT and PET have previously been described. The purpose of this study was to compare the two modalities quantitatively in humans. METHODS: Calibration correction factors for both quantitative Y-90 bremsstrahlung SPECT and a non-time-of-flight PET system without compensation for prompt coincidences were developed by imaging three phantoms. The consistency of these calibration correction factors for the different phantoms was evaluated. Post-therapy images from both modalities were obtained from 15 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatic radioembolization using Y-90 glass microspheres. Quantitative SPECT and PET images were rigidly registered and the total liver activities and activity distributions estimated for each modality were compared. The activity distributions were compared using profiles, voxel-by-voxel correlation and Bland-Altman analyses, and activity-volume histograms. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation of difference in the total activity in the liver between the two modalities was 0% ± 9% (range -21%-18%). Voxel-by-voxel comparisons showed a good agreement in regions corresponding roughly to treated tumor and treated normal liver; the agreement was poorer in regions with low or no expected activity, where PET appeared to overestimate the activity. The correlation coefficients between intrahepatic voxel pairs for the two modalities ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. Cumulative activity volume histograms were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that, with appropriate reconstruction methods and measured calibration correction factors, either Y-90 SPECT/CT or Y-90 PET/CT can be used for quantitative post-therapy monitoring of Y-90 activity distribution following hepatic radioembolization.
PURPOSE: Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres may be optimized with patient-specific pretherapy treatment planning. Dose verification and validation of treatment planning methods require quantitative imaging of the post-therapy distribution of yttrium-90 (Y-90). Methods for quantitative imaging of Y-90 using both bremsstrahlung SPECT and PET have previously been described. The purpose of this study was to compare the two modalities quantitatively in humans. METHODS: Calibration correction factors for both quantitative Y-90 bremsstrahlung SPECT and a non-time-of-flight PET system without compensation for prompt coincidences were developed by imaging three phantoms. The consistency of these calibration correction factors for the different phantoms was evaluated. Post-therapy images from both modalities were obtained from 15 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatic radioembolization using Y-90 glass microspheres. Quantitative SPECT and PET images were rigidly registered and the total liver activities and activity distributions estimated for each modality were compared. The activity distributions were compared using profiles, voxel-by-voxel correlation and Bland-Altman analyses, and activity-volume histograms. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation of difference in the total activity in the liver between the two modalities was 0% ± 9% (range -21%-18%). Voxel-by-voxel comparisons showed a good agreement in regions corresponding roughly to treated tumor and treated normal liver; the agreement was poorer in regions with low or no expected activity, where PET appeared to overestimate the activity. The correlation coefficients between intrahepatic voxel pairs for the two modalities ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. Cumulative activity volume histograms were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that, with appropriate reconstruction methods and measured calibration correction factors, either Y-90 SPECT/CT or Y-90 PET/CT can be used for quantitative post-therapy monitoring of Y-90 activity distribution following hepatic radioembolization.
Authors: David Minarik; Katarina Sjögreen-Gleisner; Ola Linden; Karin Wingårdh; Jan Tennvall; Sven-Erik Strand; Michael Ljungberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maurits Wondergem; Maarten L J Smits; Mattijs Elschot; Hugo W A M de Jong; Helena M Verkooijen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Johannes F W Nijsen; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Katie N Tapp; William B Lea; Matthew S Johnson; Mark Tann; James W Fletcher; Gary D Hutchins Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Marnix G E H Lam; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Max A Viergever; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Se Young Chun; Minh Phuong Nguyen; Thanh Quoc Phan; Hanvit Kim; Jeffrey A Fessler; Yuni K Dewaraja Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Hugo Levillain; Oreste Bagni; Christophe M Deroose; Arnaud Dieudonné; Silvano Gnesin; Oliver S Grosser; S Cheenu Kappadath; Andrew Kennedy; Nima Kokabi; David M Liu; David C Madoff; Armeen Mahvash; Antonio Martinez de la Cuesta; David C E Ng; Philipp M Paprottka; Cinzia Pettinato; Macarena Rodríguez-Fraile; Riad Salem; Bruno Sangro; Lidia Strigari; Daniel Y Sze; Berlinda J de Wit van der Veen; Patrick Flamen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sara St James; Bryan Bednarz; Stanley Benedict; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Yuni Dewaraja; Eric Frey; Robert Hobbs; Joseph Grudzinski; Emilie Roncali; George Sgouros; Jacek Capala; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter S Potrebko; Ravi Shridhar; Matthew C Biagioli; William F Sensakovic; George Andl; Jan Poleszczuk; Timothy H Fox Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 2.102