Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
LetterLetters to the Editor

The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization

Stephan Walrand, Michel Hesse, Lhommel Renaud and François Jamar
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2015, 56 (3) 494-495; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.152017
Stephan Walrand
*Université Catholique de Louvain Av. Hippocrate 10 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stephan.walrand@uclouvain.be
Michel Hesse
*Université Catholique de Louvain Av. Hippocrate 10 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stephan.walrand@uclouvain.be
Lhommel Renaud
*Université Catholique de Louvain Av. Hippocrate 10 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stephan.walrand@uclouvain.be
François Jamar
*Université Catholique de Louvain Av. Hippocrate 10 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stephan.walrand@uclouvain.be
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Erratum - May 01, 2016

TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the paper entitled “The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization” (1). In this paper, Tapp et al. showed that commercial software that truncates the negative pixels (resulting from random-coincidence correction) can display a significant positive bias in 90Y PET imaging. We would like to bring some additional information to the attention of readers and PET system manufacturers.

We were also confronted by this problem while developing a correction method for the spurious-coincidence contamination occurring in 86Y PET imaging (2): directly subtracting the estimated spurious-coincidence sinogram from the 511–511 keV true-coincidence sinogram (i.e., prompt minus delayed coincidences) resulted in numerous negative pixel values due to the high fraction of spurious coincidences generated by the multiple γ cascades present in 86Y decay (3). Afterward, truncating these negative pixels before ordered-subsets expectation maximization reconstruction ended up in significant bias. Additional smoothing of the spurious-coincidence sinogram only partially improved the reconstruction.

Initially, we tried to take into account the estimation of spurious coincidences by adding it to the projection estimate in the denominator of the iteration step, which can be schematically written asEmbedded Imagewhere An is the activity image estimate at step n, I the identity image, c the projection matrix, S the measured true-coincidence sinogram, and Ssc the estimation of the spurious-coincidence sinogram. The operation +,— is performed ray-sum by ray-sum, and the operation × is performed voxel by voxel. Although this method preserves the reconstructed voxel positivity in an elegant, natural way, we observed that Algorithm 1 no longer correctly converges when the estimated term Ssc becomes too large (data not published). In 86Y PET imaging, this was especially the case for corpulent patients. This method is currently implemented in the Gemini TF PET system (Philips) for correction of scatter and random coincidences (4,5). Care should thus be taken when imaging low-90Y specific activity with this lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate–based system (6).

Finally, we decided to remove the negative pixels from the subtracted sinogram by transferring to them an appropriate number of counts from neighboring positive pixels (a detailed description of the method has been published (2)). The rationale of this strategy is that Poisson noise is characterized mainly by high-spatial-frequency positive–negative fluctuations. This transfer of counts was performed in a special way that avoids artifact generation in the reconstructed image. Phantom and patient studies showed that this method prevents bias in 86Y PET imaging (2). The method could also be evaluated in 90Y imaging with PET systems, allowing separated prompt- and random-coincidence acquisitions such as the one used by Tapp et al. (1).

Footnotes

  • Published online Jan. 29, 2015.

  • © 2015 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Tapp KN,
    2. Lea WB,
    3. Johnson MS,
    4. Tann M,
    5. Fletcher JW,
    6. Hutchins GD
    . The impact of image reconstruction bias on PET/CT 90Y dosimetry after radioembolization. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1452–1458.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Walrand S,
    2. Jamar F,
    3. Mathieu I,
    4. et al
    . Quantitation in PET using isotopes emitting prompt single gammas: application to yttrium-86. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:354–361.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Y-86 EC. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute website. Published 2000. Accessed January 12, 2015.
  4. 4.↵
    1. van Elmbt L,
    2. Vandenberghe S,
    3. Walrand S,
    4. Pauwels S,
    5. Jamar F
    . Comparison of yttrium-90 quantitative imaging by TOF and non-TOF PET in a phantom of liver selective internal radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:6759–6777.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Wang W,
    2. Hu Z,
    3. Gualtieri EE,
    4. et al
    . Systematic and distributed time-of-flight list mode PET reconstruction. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2006;3:1715–1722.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Walrand S,
    2. Jamar F,
    3. van Elmbt L,
    4. Lhommel R,
    5. Bekonde EB,
    6. Pauwels S
    . 4-step renal dosimetry dependent on cortex geometry applied to 90Y peptide receptor radiotherapy: evaluation using a fillable kidney phantom imaged by 90Y PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1969–1973.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 56 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 56, Issue 3
March 1, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization
Stephan Walrand, Michel Hesse, Lhommel Renaud, François Jamar
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2015, 56 (3) 494-495; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.152017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Impact of Image Reconstruction Bias on PET/CT 90Y Dosimetry After Radioembolization
Stephan Walrand, Michel Hesse, Lhommel Renaud, François Jamar
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2015, 56 (3) 494-495; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.152017
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Erratum
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Theranostic Digital Twins: An Indispensable Prerequisite for Personalized Cancer Care
  • Dosimetry in Radiopharmaceutical Therapy
  • Reply: Dosimetry in Radiopharmaceutical Therapy
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire