Qualitative estimation of pelvic organ interactions and their consequences on prostate motion: study on a deceased person.

In an attempt to have better targeting of the prostate during radiotherapy it is necessary to understand the mechanical interactions between bladder, rectum, and prostate and estimate their consequences on prostate motion. For this, the volumes of bladder, rectum, and lungs were modified concomitantly on a deceased person. A CT acquisition was performed for each of these different pelvic configurations (36 acquisitions). An increase in the volume of the bladder or lungs induces a compression of tissues of the pelvic area from its supero-anterior (S-A) to infero-posterior (I-P) side. Conversely, an increase of rectum volume induces a compression from the I-P to the S-A side of the pelvic region. These compressive actions can be added or subtracted from each other, depending on their amplitudes and directions. Prostate motion occurs when a movement of the rectum is observed (this movement depends, itself, on lungs and bladder volume). The maximum movement of prostate is 9 mm considering maximal bladder or rectal action, and 11 mm considering maximum lung action. In some other cases, opposition of compressive effects can lead to stasis of the prostate. Based on the volumes of bladder, rectum, and lungs, it is possible to qualitatively estimate the movement of organs of the pelvic area. The best way to reduce prostate movement is to recommend the patient to have an empty rectum, with either full bladder and/or full lungs.

Calibration test of PET scanners in a multi-centre clinical trial on breast cancer therapy monitoring using 18F-FLT.

UNLABELLED: A multi-centre trial using PET requires the analysis of images acquired on different systems We designed a multi-centre trial to estimate the value of 18F-FLT-PET to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. A calibration check of each PET-CT and of its peripheral devices was performed to evaluate the reliability of the results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 11 centres were investigated. Dose calibrators were assessed by repeated measurements of a 68Ge certified source. The differences between the clocks associated with the dose calibrators and inherent to the PET systems were registered. The calibration of PET-CT was assessed with an homogeneous cylindrical phantom by comparing the activities per unit of volume calculated from the dose calibrator measurements with that measured on 15 Regions of Interest (ROIs) drawn on 15 consecutive slices of reconstructed filtered back-projection (FBP) images. Both repeatability of activity concentration based upon the 15 ROIs (ANOVA-test) and its accuracy were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for dose calibrator measurements (median of difference -0.04%; min = -4.65%; max = +5.63%). Mismatches between the clocks were less than 2 min in all sites and thus did not require any correction, regarding the half life of 18F. For all the PET systems, ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the activity concentrations estimated from the 15 ROIs (median of difference -0.69%; min = -9.97%; max = +9.60%). CONCLUSION: No major difference between the 11 centres with respect to calibration and cross-calibration was observed. The reliability of our 18F-FLT multi-centre clinical trial was therefore confirmed from the physical point of view. This type of procedure may be useful for any clinical trial involving different PET systems.