Angela Collarino1,2, Lenka M Pereira Arias-Bouda1,3, Renato A Valdés Olmos1,4,5, Pieternel van der Tol6, Petra Dibbets-Schneider1, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei1,2, Floris H P van Velden1,6. 1. Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, MIRA Institute University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Simon Smitweg 1, 2353 GA, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands. 4. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Medical Physics, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent developments in iterative image reconstruction enable absolute quantification of SPECT/CT studies by incorporating compensation for collimator-detector response, attenuation, and scatter as well as resolution recovery into the reconstruction process (Evolution; Q.Metrix package; GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, UK). The aim of this experimental study is to assess its quantitative accuracy for potential clinical 99m Tc-sestamibi (MIBI)-related SPECT/CT application in neoadjuvant chemotherapy response studies in breast cancer. METHODS: Two phantoms were filled with MIBI and acquired on a SPECT/CT gamma camera (Discovery 670 Pro; GE Healthcare), that is, a water cylinder and a NEMA body phantom containing six spheres that were filled with an activity concentration reflecting clinical MIBI uptake. Subsequently, volumes-of-interest (VOI) of each sphere were drawn (semi)automatically on SPECT using various isocontour methods or manually on CT. Finally, prone MIBI SPECT/CT scans were acquired 5 and 90 min p.i. in a locally advanced breast cancer patient. RESULTS: Activity concentration in the four largest spheres converged after nine iterations of evolution. Depending on the count statistics, the accuracy of the reconstructed activity concentration varied between -4.7 and -0.16% (VOI covering the entire phantom) and from 6.9% to 10% (8.8 cm ⌀ cylinder VOI placed in the center of the phantom). Recovery coefficients of SUVmax were 1.89 ± 0.18, 1.76 ± 0.17, 2.00 ± 0.38, 1.89 ± 0.35, and 0.90 ± 0.26 for spheres with 37, 28, 22, 17, and 13 mm ⌀, respectively. Recovery coefficients of SUVmean were 1.07 ± 0.06, 1.03 ± 0.09, 1.17 ± 0.21, 1.10 ± 0.20, and 0.52 ± 0.14 (42% isocontour); 1.10 ± 0.07, 1.02 ± 0.09, 1.13 ± 0.19, 1.06 ± 0.19, and 0.51 ± 0.13 (36% isocontour with local background correction); and 0.96, 1.09, 1.03, 1.03, and 0.29 (CT). Patient study results were concordant with the phantom validation. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute SPECT/CT quantification of breast studies using MIBI seems feasible (<17% deviation) when a 42% isocontour is used for delineation for tumors of at least 17 mm diameter. However, with tumor shrinkage, response evaluation should be handled with caution, especially when using SUVmax .
PURPOSE: Recent developments in iterative image reconstruction enable absolute quantification of SPECT/CT studies by incorporating compensation for collimator-detector response, attenuation, and scatter as well as resolution recovery into the reconstruction process (Evolution; Q.Metrix package; GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, UK). The aim of this experimental study is to assess its quantitative accuracy for potential clinical 99m Tc-sestamibi (MIBI)-related SPECT/CT application in neoadjuvant chemotherapy response studies in breast cancer. METHODS: Two phantoms were filled with MIBI and acquired on a SPECT/CT gamma camera (Discovery 670 Pro; GE Healthcare), that is, a water cylinder and a NEMA body phantom containing six spheres that were filled with an activity concentration reflecting clinical MIBI uptake. Subsequently, volumes-of-interest (VOI) of each sphere were drawn (semi)automatically on SPECT using various isocontour methods or manually on CT. Finally, prone MIBI SPECT/CT scans were acquired 5 and 90 min p.i. in a locally advanced breast cancerpatient. RESULTS: Activity concentration in the four largest spheres converged after nine iterations of evolution. Depending on the count statistics, the accuracy of the reconstructed activity concentration varied between -4.7 and -0.16% (VOI covering the entire phantom) and from 6.9% to 10% (8.8 cm ⌀ cylinder VOI placed in the center of the phantom). Recovery coefficients of SUVmax were 1.89 ± 0.18, 1.76 ± 0.17, 2.00 ± 0.38, 1.89 ± 0.35, and 0.90 ± 0.26 for spheres with 37, 28, 22, 17, and 13 mm ⌀, respectively. Recovery coefficients of SUVmean were 1.07 ± 0.06, 1.03 ± 0.09, 1.17 ± 0.21, 1.10 ± 0.20, and 0.52 ± 0.14 (42% isocontour); 1.10 ± 0.07, 1.02 ± 0.09, 1.13 ± 0.19, 1.06 ± 0.19, and 0.51 ± 0.13 (36% isocontour with local background correction); and 0.96, 1.09, 1.03, 1.03, and 0.29 (CT). Patient study results were concordant with the phantom validation. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute SPECT/CT quantification of breast studies using MIBI seems feasible (<17% deviation) when a 42% isocontour is used for delineation for tumors of at least 17 mm diameter. However, with tumor shrinkage, response evaluation should be handled with caution, especially when using SUVmax .
Authors: Steffie M B Peters; Niels R van der Werf; Marcel Segbers; Floris H P van Velden; Roel Wierts; Koos J A K Blokland; Mark W Konijnenberg; Sergiy V Lazarenko; Eric P Visser; Martin Gotthardt Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2019-12-26
Authors: Matthias Weissinger; Jonas Vogel; Jürgen Kupferschläger; Helmut Dittmann; Salvador Guillermo Castaneda Vega; Ulrich Grosse; Christoph Artzner; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougere; Gerd Grözinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gijsbert M Kalisvaart; Floris H P van Velden; Irene Hernández-Girón; Karin M Meijer; Laura M H Ghesquiere-Dierickx; Wyger M Brink; Andrew Webb; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Cornelis H Slump; Dimitri V Kuznetsov; Dennis R Schaart; Willem Grootjans Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Friederike Völter; Lena Mittlmeier; Astrid Gosewisch; Julia Brosch-Lenz; Franz Josef Gildehaus; Mathias Johannes Zacherl; Leonie Beyer; Christian G Stief; Adrien Holzgreve; Johannes Rübenthaler; Clemens C Cyran; Guido Böning; Peter Bartenstein; Andrei Todica; Harun Ilhan Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-03
Authors: Alina van de Burgt; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Cornelis H Slump; Arthur J H A Scholte; Douwe E Atsma; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Floris H P van Velden Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-06-16
Authors: Dennis Kupitz; Heiko Wissel; Jan Wuestemann; Stephanie Bluemel; Maciej Pech; Holger Amthauer; Michael C Kreissl; Oliver S Grosser Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-07-30