Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Uncertainties in calibration for quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT

Wendy Siman, Justin Mikell and Srinivas Kappadath
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1748;
Wendy Siman
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin Mikell
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Srinivas Kappadath
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

1748

Objectives Quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT can be used to estimate absorbed doses to tumors and liver following 90Y microsphere therapies (90YMT). Uncertainties in count-to-activity calibration of 90Y SPECT directly affects SPECT activity quantification and absorbed dose estimates. Correction of 90Y bremsstrahlung scatter and attenuation are challenging. The objective of this study is to determine the uncertainties in the calibration factor (CF) for quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT studies.

Methods 90Y activity in patients is largely located in the liver and confined to the SPECT field of view (FOV). 30 clinical studies were selected with 90Y activities in FOV known within 10%; the lung shunt fraction (from MAA scan) was <10% and net administered activity (by measuring exposure rate of prescribed activity and post-therapy waste) was >98%. Error in 90Y activity assay using dose calibrator is <5%. Post-90YMT Planar (ANT & POST) and SPECT/CT images were acquired using Siemens SymbiaT with MELP collimator in 4 energy windows (EW) A:70-90, B:90-125, C:125-161, D:314-415 keV. SPECT was reconstructed from projections in EW B using OSEM with CT attenuation correction, resolution recovery and in-house EW-based scatter correction. Self-CF was defined as net activity in FOV/ total counts. For each patient, self-CF was calculated for Planar counts, SPECT projection counts, and SPECT reconstructed counts. Correlations and least-squares fit of net activity with total counts were performed. Mean and maximum deviation of self-CF from best-fit CF were calculated.

Results Total counts in Planar, SPECT projections, reconstructed SPECT images for patient scans were proportional to the net activity in all EW; R2>0.99, p<0.01. The mean & maximum deviation of self-CF for each patient from the least-squares fit CF for Planar, SPECT projections, reconstructed SPECT images were 10% & 23%, 9% & 27%, 4% & 10%.

Conclusions 90Y SPECT/CT reconstruction in patient scans adequately correct for attenuation and scatter as evident by decrease in variability of self-CF. A single CF can be used to convert the total SPECT/CT counts to activity in the FOV with errors <10%.

Research Support NIH/NCI R01 CA13898

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 56, Issue supplement 3
May 1, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
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.
Uncertainties in calibration for quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT
(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
Uncertainties in calibration for quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT
Wendy Siman, Justin Mikell, Srinivas Kappadath
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1748;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Uncertainties in calibration for quantitative 90Y SPECT/CT
Wendy Siman, Justin Mikell, Srinivas Kappadath
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2015, 56 (supplement 3) 1748;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Instrumentation & Data Analysis

  • Assessment of AI-Enhanced Quantitative Volumetric MRI with Semi-Quantitative Analysis in 18F-FDG Metabolic Imaging for Alzheimer's Diagnosis.
  • Assessment of SUV consistency in PET/CT with annulus 68Ge DQA phantom
  • Assessment of Tumor Burden in Lymphoma Patients with Deauville Score 4 Disease on Post Therapy FDG PET
Show more Instrumentation & Data Analysis

MTA II: Data Analysis & Management Posters

  • Quantitative image validation of PET-MR against stand-alone PET - A dynamic 11C-PE2I PET study.
  • Molecular Imaging And Kinetic Analysis Toolbox (MIAKAT) - A Quantitative Software Package for the Analysis of PET Neuroimaging Data
  • Validations for MR-based partial volume correction for brain PET imaging
Show more MTA II: Data Analysis & Management Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire