Advertisement

 

 

Cross calibration of (123)I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratio with D-SPECT planogram and Anger camera.

Cross calibration of (123)I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratio with D-SPECT planogram and Anger camera.
Author Information (click to view)

Nakajima K, Okuda K, Yokoyama K, Yoneyama T, Tsuji S, Oda H, Yoshita M, Kubota K,


Nakajima K, Okuda K, Yokoyama K, Yoneyama T, Tsuji S, Oda H, Yoshita M, Kubota K, (click to view)

Nakajima K, Okuda K, Yokoyama K, Yoneyama T, Tsuji S, Oda H, Yoshita M, Kubota K,

Advertisement

Annals of nuclear medicine 2017 07 08() doi 10.1007/s12149-017-1191-2
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Cardiac (123)I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) uptake is quantified using the heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) with an Anger camera. The relationship between HMR determined using D-SPECT with a cadmium-zinc-telluride detector and an Anger camera is not fully understood. Therefore, the present study aimed to define this relationship using images derived from a phantom and from patients.

METHODS
Cross-calibration phantom studies using an Anger camera with a low-energy high-resolution (LEHR) collimator and D-SPECT, and clinical (123)I-MIBG studies proceeded in 40 consecutive patients (80 studies). In the phantom study, a conversion coefficient (CC) was defined based on phantom experiments and applied to the Anger camera and the D-SPECT detector. The HMR was calculated using anterior images with the Anger camera and anterior planograms with D-SPECT. First, the HMR from D-SPECT was cross-calibrated to the Anger camera, and then, the HMR from both cameras were converted to the medium-energy general-purpose collimator condition (CC 0.88; ME88 condition). The relationship between HMR and corrected and uncorrected methods was examined. A (123)I-MIBG washout rate was calculated using both methods with and without background subtraction.

RESULTS
Based on the phantom experiments, the CC of the Anger camera with an LEHR collimator and of D-SPECT using an anterior planogram was 0.55 and 0.63, respectively. The original HMR from the Anger camera and D-SPECT was 1.76 ± 0.42 and 1.86 ± 0.55, respectively (p < 0.0001). After D-SPECT HMR was converted to the Anger camera condition, the corrected D-SPECT HMR became comparable to the values under the Anger camera condition (1.75 ± 0.48, p = n. s.). When the HMR measured using the two cameras were converted under the ME88 condition, the average standardized HMR from the Anger camera and D-SPECT became comparable (2.21 ± 0.65 vs. 2.20 ± 0.75, p = n. s.). After standardization to the ME88 condition, a systematic difference in the linear regression lines disappeared, and the HMR from both the Anger (StdHMRAnger) and D-SPECT (StdHMRDSPECT) became comparable. Additional correction using a regression line further improved the relationship between both HMR [StdHMRDSPECT = 0.09 + 0.98 × StdHMRAnger (R (2) = 0.91)]. The washout rate closely correlated with and without background correction between both methods (R (2) = 0.83 and 0.65, respectively). CONCLUSION
The phantom-based conversion method is applicable to D-SPECT and enables the common application of HMR irrespective of D-SPECT and the Anger camera.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ten − one =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]