Internal dosimetry study of [82Rb]Cl using a long axial field-of-view PET/CT.

PURPOSE: Long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) positron emission tomography (PET) systems allow to image all major organs with one bed position, which is particularly useful for acquiring whole-body dynamic data using short-lived radioisotopes like 82Rb. METHODS: We determined the absorbed dose in target organs of three subjects (29, 40, and 57 years old) using two different methods, i.e., MIRD and voxel dosimetry. The subjects were injected with 407.0 to 419.61 MBq of [82Rb]Cl and were scanned dynamically for 7 min with a LAFOV PET/CT scanner. RESULTS: Using the MIRD formalism and voxel dosimetry, the absorbed dose ranged from 1.84 to 2.78 µGy/MBq (1.57 to 3.92 µGy/MBq for voxel dosimetry) for the heart wall, 2.76 to 5.73 µGy/MBq (3.22 to 5.37 µGy/MBq for voxel dosimetry) for the kidneys, and 0.94 to 1.88 µGy/MBq (0.98 to 1.92 µGy/MBq for voxel dosimetry) for the lungs. The total body effective dose lied between 0.50 and 0.76 µSv/MBq. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the radiation dose associated with [82Rb]Cl PET/CT can be assessed by means of dynamic LAFOV PET and that it is lower compared to literature values.

Investigating the influence of long-axial versus short-axial field of view PET/CT on stage migration in lymphoma and non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of a long-axial field-of-view (LAFOV) on stage migration using a large single-centre retrospective cohort in lymphoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A retrospective study is performed for patients undergoing PET/computed tomography (CT) on either a short-axial field-of-view (SAFOV) or LAFOV PET/CT system for the staging of known or suspected NSCLC or for therapeutic response in lymphoma. The primary endpoint was the Deauville therapy response score for patients with lymphoma for the two systems. Secondary endpoints were the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage for NSCLC, the frequency of cN3 and cM1 findings, the probability for a positive nodal staging (cN1-3) for NSCLC and the diagnostic accuracy for nodal staging in NSCLC. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eighteen records were screened and 597 patients were included for analysis ( N  = 367 for lymphoma and N  = 291 for NSCLC). For lymphoma, no significant differences were found in the proportion of patients with complete metabolic response versus non-complete metabolic response Deauville response scores ( P  = 0.66). For NSCLC no significant differences were observed between the two scanners for the frequency of cN3 and cM1 findings, for positive nodal staging, neither the sensitivity nor the specificity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study use of a LAFOV system was neither associated with upstaging in lymphoma nor NSCLC compared to a digital SAFOV system. Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between the two systems in NSCLC despite shorter acquisition times for LAFOV.