Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment.
Bailey, Dale L; Hofman, Michael S; Forwood, Nicholas J; O'Keefe, Graeme J; Scott, Andrew M; van Wyngaardt, Winifred M; Howe, Bonnie; Kovacev, Olga; Francis, Roslyn J.
Afiliação
  • Bailey DL; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia dale.bailey@sydney.edu.au.
  • Hofman MS; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Forwood NJ; Molecular Imaging, Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
  • O'Keefe GJ; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
  • Scott AM; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • van Wyngaardt WM; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Howe B; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Kovacev O; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Francis RJ; Radionuclide Metrology Group, Nuclear Stewardship, ANSTO, Sydney, Australia.
J Nucl Med ; 59(4): 636-638, 2018 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29326354
ABSTRACT
We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia.

Methods:

Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV.

Results:

At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for 68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values.

Conclusion:

PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doses de Radiação / Achados Incidentais / Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons / Radioisótopos de Gálio Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Nucl Med Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doses de Radiação / Achados Incidentais / Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons / Radioisótopos de Gálio Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Nucl Med Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália