Agata Kubik1, Anna Budzyńska1,2, Krzysztof Kacperski1,3, Maciej Maciak4, Michał Kuć4, Piotr Piasecki5, Maciej Wiliński4, Marcin Konior6, Mirosław Dziuk1,2, Edward Iller6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Affidea Mazovian PET/CT Medical Centre, Warsaw, Poland. 3. Particle Acceleration Physics and Technology Division (TJ1), National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland. 4. Radiological Metrology and Biomedical Physics Division (H2), National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland. 5. Department of Interventional Radiology, Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland. 6. National Centre for Nuclear Research, Radioisotope Centre POLATOM, Otwock-Świerk, Poland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the feasibility of SPECT and PET Y-90 imaging, and to compare these modalities by visualizing hot and cold foci in phantoms for varying isotope concentrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data was acquired from the Jaszczak and NEMA phantoms. In the Jaszczak phantom Y-90 concentrations of 0.1 MBq/ml and 0.2 MBq/ml were used, while higher concentrations, up to 1.0 MBq/ml, were simulated by acquisition time extension with respect to the standard clinical protocol of 30 sec/projection for SPECT and 30 min/bed position for PET imaging. For NEMA phantom, the hot foci had concentrations of about 4 MB/ml and the background 0.1 or 0.0 MBq/ml. All of the acquired data was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative assessment was conducted by six observers asked to identify the number of visible cold or hot foci. Inter-observer agreement was assessed. Quantitative analysis included calculations of contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and comparisons with the qualitative results. RESULTS: For SPECT data up to two cold foci were discernible, while for PET four foci were visible. We have shown that CNR (with Rose criterion) is a good measure of foci visibility for both modalities. We also found good concordance of qualitative results for the Jaszczak phantom studies between the observers (corresponding Krippendorf's alpha coefficients of 0.76 to 0.84). In the NEMA phantom without background activity all foci were visible in SPECT/CT images. With isotope in the background, 5 of 6 spheres were discernible (CNR of 3.0 for the smallest foci). For PET studies all hot spheres were visible, regardless of the background activity. CONCLUSIONS: PET Y-90 imaging provided better results than Bremsstrahlung based SPECT imaging. This indicates that PET/CT might become the method of choice in Y-90 post radioembolization imaging for visualisation of both necrotic and hot lesions in the liver.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the feasibility of SPECT and PET Y-90 imaging, and to compare these modalities by visualizing hot and cold foci in phantoms for varying isotope concentrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data was acquired from the Jaszczak and NEMA phantoms. In the Jaszczak phantom Y-90 concentrations of 0.1 MBq/ml and 0.2 MBq/ml were used, while higher concentrations, up to 1.0 MBq/ml, were simulated by acquisition time extension with respect to the standard clinical protocol of 30 sec/projection for SPECT and 30 min/bed position for PET imaging. For NEMA phantom, the hot foci had concentrations of about 4 MB/ml and the background 0.1 or 0.0 MBq/ml. All of the acquired data was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative assessment was conducted by six observers asked to identify the number of visible cold or hot foci. Inter-observer agreement was assessed. Quantitative analysis included calculations of contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and comparisons with the qualitative results. RESULTS: For SPECT data up to two cold foci were discernible, while for PET four foci were visible. We have shown that CNR (with Rose criterion) is a good measure of foci visibility for both modalities. We also found good concordance of qualitative results for the Jaszczak phantom studies between the observers (corresponding Krippendorf's alpha coefficients of 0.76 to 0.84). In the NEMA phantom without background activity all foci were visible in SPECT/CT images. With isotope in the background, 5 of 6 spheres were discernible (CNR of 3.0 for the smallest foci). For PET studies all hot spheres were visible, regardless of the background activity. CONCLUSIONS: PET Y-90 imaging provided better results than Bremsstrahlung based SPECT imaging. This indicates that PET/CT might become the method of choice in Y-90 post radioembolization imaging for visualisation of both necrotic and hot lesions in the liver.
Authors: Renaud Lhommel; Pierre Goffette; Marc Van den Eynde; François Jamar; Stanislas Pauwels; Jose I Bilbao; Stephan Walrand Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Enrique Aranda; Jorge Aparicio; José Ignacio Bilbao; Pilar García-Alfonso; Joan Maurel; Javier Rodríguez; Bruno Sangro; José María Vieitez; Jaime Feliu Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Juan C Camacho; Valeria Moncayo; Nima Kokabi; Hamilton E Reavey; James R Galt; Kei Yamada; Darren D Kies; Roger S Williams; Hyun S Kim; David M Schuster Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Johannes Franciscus Wilhelmus Nijsen; Alida Johanna Dam; Hugo Wilhelmus Antonius Maria de Jong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yung-Hsiang Kao; Jeffrey D Steinberg; Young-Soon Tay; Gabriel Ky Lim; Jianhua Yan; David W Townsend; Angela Takano; Mark C Burgmans; Farah G Irani; Terence Kb Teo; Tow-Non Yeow; Apoorva Gogna; Richard Hg Lo; Kiang-Hiong Tay; Bien-Soo Tan; Pierce Kh Chow; Somanesan Satchithanantham; Andrew Eh Tan; David Ce Ng; Anthony Sw Goh Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Marta Cremonesi; Carlo Chiesa; Lidia Strigari; Mahila Ferrari; Francesca Botta; Francesco Guerriero; Concetta De Cicco; Guido Bonomo; Franco Orsi; Lisa Bodei; Amalia Di Dia; Chiara Maria Grana; Roberto Orecchia Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Michael A Masoomi; Iman Al-Shammeri; Khaled Kalafallah; Hany M A Elrahman; Osama Ragab; Ebba Ahmed; Jehan Al-Shammeri; Sharif Arafat Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Alejandro Bertolet; Eric Wehrenberg-Klee; Mislav Bobić; Clemens Grassberger; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti; Jan Schuemann Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Daniel Deidda; Ana M Denis-Bacelar; Andrew J Fenwick; Kelley M Ferreira; Warda Heetun; Brian F Hutton; Andrew P Robinson; James Scuffham; Kris Thielemans Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-04-04