Louise M Fanchon1, Bradley J Beattie1, Keith Pentlow1, Steven M Larson2, John L Humm3. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. hummj@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this work was to determine the quantitative accuracy and optimal reconstruction parameters for 124I-PET imaging in the presence of therapeutic levels of 131I. In this effort, images were acquired on a GE D710 PET/CT scanner using a NEMA IEC phantom with spheres containing 124I and increasing amounts of 131I activity in the background. At each activity level, two scans were acquired, one with the phantom centered in the field of view (FOV) and one 11.2 cm off-center. Reconstructions used an ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with up to 100 iterations of 16 subsets, with and without time-of-flight (TOF) information. Results were evaluated visually and by comparing the 124I activity relative to the scan performed in the absence of 131I. RESULTS: 131I within the FOV added to the randoms rate, to dead time, and to pile-up within the detectors. Using our standard clinical reconstruction parameters, the image quality and quantitative accuracy suffered at 131I activities above 1.4 GBq. Convergence rates slowed progressively in the presence of increasing amounts of 131I for both TOF and nonTOF reconstructions. TOF reconstructions converged more quickly than nonTOF but often towards erroneous concentrations. Iterating nonTOF reconstructions to convergence produced quantitatively accurate images except for the off-center phantom at the very highest level of background 131I tested. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that quantitative PET is feasible in the presence of large amounts of 131I. The high randoms fractions resulted in slow reconstruction convergence and negatively impacted TOF corrections and/or the accuracy of TOF information. Therefore, increased iterations and nonTOF reconstructions are recommended.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this work was to determine the quantitative accuracy and optimal reconstruction parameters for 124I-PET imaging in the presence of therapeutic levels of 131I. In this effort, images were acquired on a GE D710 PET/CT scanner using a NEMA IEC phantom with spheres containing 124I and increasing amounts of 131I activity in the background. At each activity level, two scans were acquired, one with the phantom centered in the field of view (FOV) and one 11.2 cm off-center. Reconstructions used an ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with up to 100 iterations of 16 subsets, with and without time-of-flight (TOF) information. Results were evaluated visually and by comparing the 124I activity relative to the scan performed in the absence of 131I. RESULTS:131I within the FOV added to the randoms rate, to dead time, and to pile-up within the detectors. Using our standard clinical reconstruction parameters, the image quality and quantitative accuracy suffered at 131I activities above 1.4 GBq. Convergence rates slowed progressively in the presence of increasing amounts of 131I for both TOF and nonTOF reconstructions. TOF reconstructions converged more quickly than nonTOF but often towards erroneous concentrations. Iterating nonTOF reconstructions to convergence produced quantitatively accurate images except for the off-center phantom at the very highest level of background 131I tested. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that quantitative PET is feasible in the presence of large amounts of 131I. The high randoms fractions resulted in slow reconstruction convergence and negatively impacted TOF corrections and/or the accuracy of TOF information. Therefore, increased iterations and nonTOF reconstructions are recommended.
Authors: Casper Beijst; Jakob W Kist; Mattijs Elschot; Max A Viergever; Otto S Hoekstra; Bart de Keizer; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mark Lubberink; Annelies van Schie; Hugo W A M de Jong; Guus A M S van Dongen; Gerrit J J Teule Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Katherine S Kolbert; Keith S Pentlow; Joel R Pearson; Arif Sheikh; Ronald D Finn; John L Humm; Steven M Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lutz S Freudenberg; Walter Jentzen; Alexander Stahl; Andreas Bockisch; Sandra J Rosenbaum-Krumme Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Shih-ying Huang; Wesley E Bolch; Choonsik Lee; Henry F Van Brocklin; Miguel H Pampaloni; Randall A Hawkins; Aimee Sznewajs; Steven G DuBois; Katherine K Matthay; Youngho Seo Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Casper Beijst; Bart de Keizer; Marnix G E H Lam; Geert O Janssens; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Walter Jentzen; Reiner Weise; Jürgen Kupferschläger; Lutz Freudenberg; Wolfgang Brandau; Ronald Bares; Wolfgang Burchert; Andreas Bockisch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 9.236