Influence on voxel-based dosimetry: noise effect on absorbed dose dosimetry at single time-point versus sequential single-photon emission computed tomography
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
LEITAO, Andre L. A.
JOSEFSSON, Anders
Citação
NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS, v.44, n.7, p.596-603, 2023
Resumo
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate how statistical fluctuation in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images propagate to absorbed dose maps. MethodsSPECT/computed tomography (CT) images of iodine-131 filled phantoms, using different acquisition and processing protocols, were evaluated using STRATOS software to assess the absorbed dose distribution at the voxel level. Absorbed dose values and coefficient of variation (COV) were analyzed for dosimetry based on single time-point SPECT images and time-integrated activities of SPECT sequences with low and high counts. ResultsConsidering dosimetry based on a single time-point, the mean absorbed dose was not significantly affected by total counts or reconstruction parameters, but the uniformity of the absorbed dose maps had an almost linear correlation with SPECT noise. When high- and low-count SPECT sequences were used to generate an absorbed dose map, the absorbed dose COV for each of the temporal sequences was slightly lower than the absorbed dose COV based on the single SPECT image with the highest count included in the sequence. ConclusionThe impact of changes in SPECT counts and reconstruction parameters is almost linear when dosimetry is based on isolated SPECT images, but less pronounced when dosimetry is based on sequential SPECTs.
Palavras-chave
in-vivo dosimetry, molecular imaging, nuclear medicine, single-photon emission computed tomography
Referências
- Amro H, 2010, J NUCL MED, V51, P654, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.109.067298
- Bardies M, 1996, PHYS MED BIOL, V41, P1941, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/41/10/007
- Bergmann H., 2009, QUALITY ASSURANCE SP
- Bolch WE, 1999, J NUCL MED, V40, p11S
- Carvalho JWA., 2016, ALASBIMN J, V5, P1
- Cherry S.R., 2012, PHYS NUCL MED
- Dewaraja YK, 2013, J NUCL MED, V54, P2182, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.113.122390
- Dewaraja YK, 2012, J NUCL MED, V53, P1310, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.111.100123
- Dewaraja YK, 2010, J NUCL MED, V51, P1155, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.110.075176
- FAHEY FH, 1992, J NUCL MED, V33, P1859
- Gear J, 2020, EJNMMI PHYS, V7, DOI 10.1186/s40658-020-0282-7
- Gear JI, 2007, CANCER BIOTHER RADIO, V22, P166, DOI 10.1089/cbr.2007.305
- GRAHAM LS, 1995, MED PHYS, V22, P401, DOI 10.1118/1.597605
- Grassi E, 2015, PHYS MEDICA, V31, P72, DOI 10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.10.002
- He B, 2010, MED PHYS, V37, P1807, DOI 10.1118/1.3358119
- Hobbs RF, 2011, MED PHYS, V38, P2892, DOI 10.1118/1.3576051
- Kassis AI, 2008, SEMIN NUCL MED, V38, P358, DOI 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.05.002
- Mikell JK, 2015, EJNMMI PHYS, V2, DOI 10.1186/s40658-015-0119-y
- Niemierko A, 1997, MED PHYS, V24, P103, DOI 10.1118/1.598063
- O'Donoghue JA, 1999, J NUCL MED, V40, P1337
- Rogers DWO, 2006, PHYS MED BIOL, V51, pR287, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R17
- Sapienza MT, 2019, CLINICS, V74, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2019/e835
- Sgouros George, 2021, Journal of the ICRU, V21, DOI 10.1177/14736691211060117
- Sgouros G, 2020, NAT REV DRUG DISCOV, V19, P589, DOI 10.1038/s41573-020-0073-9
- Soret M, 2007, J NUCL MED, V48, P932, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
- Vaziri B, 2014, J NUCL MED, V55, P1557, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.113.131037
- ZANZONICO PB, 1989, SEMIN NUCL MED, V19, P47, DOI 10.1016/S0001-2998(89)80035-2