Cross calibration of 123I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratio with D-SPECT planogram and Anger camera.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cardiac 123I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) uptake is quantified using the heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) with an Anger camera. The relationship between HMR determined using D-SPECT with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector and an Anger camera is not fully understood. Therefore, the present study aimed to define this relationship using images derived from a phantom and from patients. METHODS: Cross-calibration phantom studies using an Anger camera with a low-energy high-resolution (LEHR) collimator and D-SPECT, and clinical 123I-MIBG studies proceeded in 40 consecutive patients (80 studies). In the phantom study, a conversion coefficient (CC) was defined based on phantom experiments and applied to the Anger camera and the D-SPECT detector. The HMR was calculated using anterior images with the Anger camera and anterior planograms with D-SPECT. First, the HMR from D-SPECT was cross-calibrated to the Anger camera, and then, the HMR from both cameras were converted to the medium-energy general-purpose collimator condition (CC 0.88; ME88 condition). The relationship between HMR and corrected and uncorrected methods was examined. A 123I-MIBG washout rate was calculated using both methods with and without background subtraction. RESULTS: Based on the phantom experiments, the CC of the Anger camera with an LEHR collimator and of D-SPECT using an anterior planogram was 0.55 and 0.63, respectively. The original HMR from the Anger camera and D-SPECT was 1.76 ± 0.42 and 1.86 ± 0.55, respectively (p < 0.0001). After D-SPECT HMR was converted to the Anger camera condition, the corrected D-SPECT HMR became comparable to the values under the Anger camera condition (1.75 ± 0.48, p = n. s.). When the HMR measured using the two cameras were converted under the ME88 condition, the average standardized HMR from the Anger camera and D-SPECT became comparable (2.21 ± 0.65 vs. 2.20 ± 0.75, p = n. s.). After standardization to the ME88 condition, a systematic difference in the linear regression lines disappeared, and the HMR from both the Anger (StdHMRAnger) and D-SPECT (StdHMRDSPECT) became comparable. Additional correction using a regression line further improved the relationship between both HMR [StdHMRDSPECT = 0.09 + 0.98 × StdHMRAnger (R 2 = 0.91)]. The washout rate closely correlated with and without background correction between both methods (R 2 = 0.83 and 0.65, respectively). CONCLUSION: The phantom-based conversion method is applicable to D-SPECT and enables the common application of HMR irrespective of D-SPECT and the Anger camera.