Systematic and random errors of PET-based 90 Y 3D dose quantification.

PURPOSE The objective was to characterize both systematic and random errors in PET-based 90 Y 3D dose quantification. METHODS A modified NEMA-IEC phantom was used to emulate 90 Y-microsphere PET imaging conditions: sphere activity concentrations of 1.6 and 4.8 MBq/cc, sphere-to-background ratios of 4 and 13, and sphere diameters of 13, 17, and 37 mm. PET data were acquired using a GE D690 PET/CT scanner for 300 min on day 0-11. The data were down-sampled to 60-5 min for multiple realizations to evaluate the count starvation effect. The image reconstruction algorithm was 3D-OSEM with PSF+TOF modeling; the parameters were optimized for dose volume histogram (DVH), as a 90 Y 3D dose quantification. 90 Y-PET images were converted to dose maps using the local deposition method, then the sphere DVH were calculated. The ground truth for the DVH were calculated using convolution method. Dose linearity was evaluated in decaying 90 Y activity (reduced count rate and total count) and decreasing acquisition durations (reduced total count only). Finally, the impacts of the low 32-ppm positron yield on PET-based 3D 90 Y-dose quantification were evaluated; the bias and variability of resulting DVHs were characterized. RESULTS We observed non-linear errors that depended on the 90 Y activity (count rate) and not on the total true prompt counts. These non-linear errors in mean dose underestimated the measured mean dose by >20% for a measured dose range of 40-230 Gy; although the shapes of the DVH were not altered. Compensation based on empirical models reduced the non-linearity errors to be within 5% for measured dose range of 40-230 Gy. In contrast, the errors due to non-uniformity introduced by image noise dominated the systematic errors in the DVH and stretched the DVH on both tails. For the 37-mm sphere, the magnitude of errors in D80 increased from -25% to -36% when acquistion duration was decreased from 300 min to 10 min. The effect of image noise on DVH was more extensive in smaller spheres; for the 17-mm sphere, the magnitude of errors in D80 increased from -29% to -45% acquisition duration was decreased from 300 to 10 min. For the 37-mm sphere, the errors in D20 increased from +3.5% to only +10.5% when the acquisition duration was decreased from 300 to 10 min; in the 17-mm sphere, the errors in D20 were 6.5% for both 300- and 10-min sphere images. CONCLUSIONS Count-starved 90 Y-PET data introduce both systematic and random errors. The systematic error increases the apparent non-uniformity of the DVH, while the random error increases the uncertainty in the DVH. The systematic errors were larger than the random errors. Lower count rate of 90 Y-PET also introduces systematic bias, which is scanner specific. The errors of bias-compensated mean tumor dose were <10% when 90 Y-PET scan time was >15 min/bed for tumors >37 mm. Dmedian and Dmean were the most stable dose metrics. An acquisition duration of 30 min is recommended to keep the random errors <10% for a typical tumor with sphere equivalent diameter >17 mm and average tumor dose >40 Gy.

[1]  D. Sze,et al.  Clinical and dosimetric considerations for Y90: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group , 2019, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  Firas Mourtada,et al.  Dose volume histogram‐based optimization of image reconstruction parameters for quantitative 90Y‐PET imaging , 2018, Medical physics.

[3]  S. Kappadath,et al.  Hepatocellular Carcinoma Tumor Dose Response After 90Y-radioembolization With Glass Microspheres Using 90Y-SPECT/CT-Based Voxel Dosimetry. , 2018, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  S. Cheenu Kappadath,et al.  Comparison of Step-and-Shoot and Continuous-Bed-Motion PET Modes of Acquisition for Limited-View Organ Scans , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[5]  Firas Mourtada,et al.  Effects of image noise, respiratory motion, and motion compensation on 3D activity quantification in count-limited PET images , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  S. Kappadath,et al.  Selective Internal Radiation Therapy With Yttrium-90 Glass Microspheres: Biases and Uncertainties in Absorbed Dose Calculations Between Clinical Dosimetry Models. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  S. Kappadath,et al.  Comparing voxel-based absorbed dosimetry methods in tumors, liver, lung, and at the liver-lung interface for 90Y microsphere selective internal radiation therapy , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[8]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  (90)Y -PET imaging: Exploring limitations and accuracy under conditions of low counts and high random fraction. , 2015, Medical physics.

[9]  Michael Tapner,et al.  A multicentre comparison of quantitative 90Y PET/CT for dosimetric purposes after radioembolization with resin microspheres , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[10]  J. Bouček,et al.  A Gelatin Liver Phantom of Suspended 90Y Resin Microspheres to Simulate the Physiologic Microsphere Biodistribution of a Postradioembolization Liver , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[11]  Matthew S. Johnson,et al.  The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  F. Orsi,et al.  Radioembolization of Hepatic Lesions from a Radiobiology and Dosimetric Perspective , 2014, Front. Oncol..

[13]  A. Pasciak,et al.  A Comparison of Techniques for 90Y PET/CT Image-Based Dosimetry Following Radioembolization with Resin Microspheres , 2014, Front. Oncol..

[14]  G. Sgouros,et al.  Dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy. , 2014, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[15]  D. Townsend,et al.  Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT - part 2: dose-response and tumor predictive dosimetry for resin microspheres , 2013, EJNMMI Research.

[16]  K. Boudjema,et al.  Boosted selective internal radiation therapy with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres (B-SIRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a new personalized promising concept , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  Yannick Berker,et al.  Study-Parameter Impact in Quantitative 90-Yttrium PET Imaging for Radioembolization Treatment Monitoring and Dosimetry , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  C. Bodet-Milin,et al.  Assessment of acquisition protocols for routine imaging of Y-90 using PET/CT , 2013, EJNMMI Research.

[19]  S. Jalkanen,et al.  Nuclear imaging of inflammation: homing-associated molecules as targets , 2013, EJNMMI Research.

[20]  Yuni K. Dewaraja,et al.  MIRD Pamphlet No. 23: Quantitative SPECT for Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional Dosimetry in Internal Radionuclide Therapy , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  M. D’Arienzo,et al.  90Y PET-based dosimetry after selective internal radiotherapy treatments , 2012, Nuclear medicine communications.

[22]  Y. Rolland,et al.  Dosimetry Based on 99mTc-Macroaggregated Albumin SPECT/CT Accurately Predicts Tumor Response and Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with 90Y-Loaded Glass Microspheres: Preliminary Results , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[23]  N. Lanconelli,et al.  A free database of radionuclide voxel S values for the dosimetry of nonuniform activity distributions , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Wenzheng Feng,et al.  Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on dosimetry, imaging, and quality assurance procedures for 90 Y microsphere brachytherapy in the treatment of hepatic malignancies. , 2011, Medical physics.

[25]  Lidia Strigari,et al.  Efficacy and Toxicity Related to Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with 90Y-SIR Spheres: Radiobiologic Considerations , 2010, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  L. V. Elmbt,et al.  Feasibility of 90Y TOF PET-based dosimetry in liver metastasis therapy using SIR-Spheres , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[27]  V. Johnson,et al.  Target definition of moving lung tumors in positron emission tomography: correlation of optimal activity concentration thresholds with object size, motion extent, and source-to-background ratio. , 2010, Medical physics.

[28]  E. Cortesi,et al.  Selective Internal Radiation Therapy with SIR-Spheres for the Treatment of Unresectable Colorectal Hepatic Metastases , 2009, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[29]  S. Gulec,et al.  Safety and efficacy of Y-90 microsphere treatment in patients with primary and metastatic liver cancer: The tumor selectivity of the treatment as a function of tumor to liver flow ratio , 2007, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[30]  M. D'Andrea,et al.  Monte Carlo dose voxel kernel calculations of beta-emitting and Auger-emitting radionuclides for internal dosimetry: A comparison between EGSnrcMP and EGS4. , 2006, Medical physics.

[31]  G. van Hazel,et al.  Randomised phase 2 trial of SIR‐Spheres® plus fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy versus fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy alone in advanced colorectal cancer , 2004, Journal of surgical oncology.

[32]  Cedric X. Yu,et al.  Radiation absorbed dose distribution in a patient treated with yttrium-90 microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2004, Medical physics.

[33]  C. Stearns,et al.  Random coincidence estimation from single event rates on the Discovery ST PET/CT scanner , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[34]  Kenneth G. Thurston,et al.  Yttrium-90 microspheres: radiation therapy for unresectable liver cancer. , 2002, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[35]  V. Gebski,et al.  Randomised trial of SIR-Spheres plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for treating patients with liver metastases from primary large bowel cancer. , 2001, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[36]  N. Pavlakis,et al.  Radioembolization versus standard care of hepatic metastases: comparative retrospective cohort study of survival outcomes and adverse events in salvage patients. , 2012, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.