Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68 Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment.

Autor:	Bailey DL; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia dale.bailey@sydney.edu.au.; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Hofman MS; Molecular Imaging, Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia., Forwood NJ; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., O'Keefe GJ; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia., Scott AM; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia., van Wyngaardt WM; Radionuclide Metrology Group, Nuclear Stewardship, ANSTO, Sydney, Australia., Howe B; Radionuclide Metrology Group, Nuclear Stewardship, ANSTO, Sydney, Australia., Kovacev O; Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (ARTnet), Australia; and., Francis RJ; Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (ARTnet), Australia; and.; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine [J Nucl Med] 2018 Apr; Vol. 59 (4), pp. 636-638. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jan 11.
DOI:	10.2967/jnumed.117.202861
Abstrakt:	We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68 Ga, 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 68 Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68 Ga 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 68 Ga 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. (© 2018 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu