Phantom Validation of Tc-99m Absolute Quantification in a SPECT/CT Commercial Device

Aim. Similar to PET, absolute quantitative imaging is becoming available in commercial SPECT/CT devices. This study's goal was to assess quantitative accuracy of activity recovery as a function of image reconstruction parameters and count statistics in a variety of phantoms. Materials and Methods. We performed quantitative 99mTc-SPECT/CT acquisitions (Siemens Symbia Intevo, Erlangen, Germany) of a uniform cylindrical, NEMA/IEC, and an anthropomorphic abdominal phantom. Background activity concentrations tested ranged: 2–80 kBq/mL. SPECT acquisitions used 120 projections (20 s/projection). Reconstructions were performed with the proprietary iterative conjugate gradient algorithm. NEMA phantom reconstructions were obtained as a function of the iteration number (range: 4–48). Recovery coefficients, hot contrast, relative lung error (NEMA phantom), and image noise were assessed. Results. In all cases, absolute activity and activity concentration were measured within 10% of the expected value. Recovery coefficients and hot contrast in hot inserts did not vary appreciably with count statistics. RC converged at 16 iterations for insert size > 22 mm. Relative lung errors were comparable to PET levels indicating the efficient integration of attenuation and scatter corrections with adequate detector modeling. Conclusions. The tested device provided accurate activity recovery within 10% of correct values; these performances are comparable to current generation PET/CT systems.

[1]  T. Turkington,et al.  SPECT/CT Physical Principles and Attenuation Correction* , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[2]  M. D’Arienzo,et al.  Three-dimensional patient-specific dosimetry in radioimmunotherapy with 90Y-ibritumomab-tiuxetan. , 2012, Cancer biotherapy & radiopharmaceuticals.

[3]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[4]  D. Bailey,et al.  An Evidence-Based Review of Quantitative SPECT Imaging and Potential Clinical Applications , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges , 2008, Nuclear medicine communications.

[6]  Dale L. Bailey,et al.  Quantitative SPECT/CT: SPECT joins PET as a quantitative imaging modality , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[7]  Joachim Hornegger,et al.  Quantitative Accuracy of Clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT Using Ordered-Subset Expectation Maximization with 3-Dimensional Resolution Recovery, Attenuation, and Scatter Correction , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  V. Bettinardi,et al.  Physical performance of the new hybrid PET∕CT Discovery-690. , 2011, Medical physics.

[9]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[10]  Irène Buvat,et al.  Review and current status of SPECT scatter correction , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.