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 ReportDosimetry & Image Analysis

Precision in dosimetric analysis and generation of a benchmark dosimetry dataset - An IAEA study

Gunjan Kayal, Nathaly Barbosa, Carlos Marín, Ludovic Ferrer, José Alejandro FRAGOSO NEGRIN, Darko Grosev, Santosh Gupta, Nur Hidayati, Robert Hobbs, Tumelo Moalosi, Gian Luca Poli, Parul Thakral, Virginia Tsapaki, Sebastien Vauclin, Alex Vergara-Gil, Peter Knoll and Manuel Bardiès
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2812;
Gunjan Kayal
1CRCT INSERM, France and RDA, SCK CEN, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathaly Barbosa
2Instituto Nacional de Cancerología
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Marín
3Instituto de Oncología y Radiobiología (INOR), La Habana, Cuba
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ludovic Ferrer
4ICO René Gauducheau, Medical Physics Department, Saint Herblain and CRCINA, UMR 1232, INSERM, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José Alejandro FRAGOSO NEGRIN
5DOSIsoft SA, Cachan, France and IRCM, UMR 1194 INSERM, Université de Montpellier and Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Darko Grosev
6Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Protection, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Santosh Gupta
7Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Cancer center and HBCH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nur Hidayati
8Research Center and Technology for Radiation Safety and Metrology - National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Hobbs
9Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiation Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tumelo Moalosi
10Tygerberg Hospital
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gian Luca Poli
11ASST Papa Giobanni XXIII
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Parul Thakral
12Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Virginia Tsapaki
13IAEA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sebastien Vauclin
14DOSIsoft SA, Cachan, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex Vergara-Gil
15CRCT, UMR 1037, INSERM, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Knoll
13IAEA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manuel Bardiès
16IRCM, UMR 1194 INSERM, Université de Montpellier and Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France and Département de Médecine Nucléaire, Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2812

Introduction: Nuclear medicine dosimetry implementation varies depending on the clinical application, dosimetry protocol, software, and ultimately the operator. Assessing clinical dosimetry accuracy & precision in MRT is therefore a challenging task. This work illustrates some pitfalls encountered even during a very structured analysis, performed on a single patient dataset by various participants using one standard protocol and clinically approved (CE) software. The study required the development of specific dosimetry checkpoints and led to a comprehensive benchmark dataset that can be used by individuals to assess their expertise in MRT clinical dosimetry.

Methods: The clinical dataset was derived from the dosimetric study of a patient administered with Lutathera® at Tygerberg Hospital, South Africa, as a part of an IAEA-CRP E23005. SPECT/CT images were acquired at five time points post injection on a GE Infinia Hawkeye 4 (3/8” NaI crystal thickness and medium energy collimator). A calibration phantom was imaged using the same acquisition settings. Patient and calibration images were reconstructed on a HermesTM workstation, and a calibration factor of 122.6 Bq/cts was derived.

A standard dosimetric protocol was defined and PLANET® Dose (v3.1.1) from DOSIsoft SA was installed in nine participating centers to perform the dosimetric analysis of 3 (out of 4) treatment cycles on the reconstructed patient image dataset. The protocol included rigid image registration, segmentation (semi-manual for organs, activity threshold for tumors), dose point kernel convolution of activity followed by absorbed dose rates (ADR) integration to obtain the absorbed doses (AD). Iterations of the protocol were conducted with training and brainstorming sessions, to analyze dosimetric result variability. Intermediary checkpoints were developed to understand the sources of variation and to differentiate user error from legitimate user variability. Eventually, a ‘real-time’ clinical dosimetry session was conducted for one cycle at IAEA headquarters with 8 participants in order to reduce the sources of identifiable error.

Results: Initial dosimetric results (AD, ADR) for organs (liver & kidneys) and liver lesions showed considerable inter-operator variability (as high as 161%). This necessitated the generation of intermediate checkpoints like total counts, volumes, activity, but also activity-to-counts ratio, activity concentration (AC), and ADR/AC ratio to analyze most variable steps. For the ‘real-time’ analysis, absorbed doses for normal organs were within 5%, while for lesions, up to 25% variation was observed, mostly due to the choice of the fitting model. Volume differences across organs were reduced to 9.4% (except for right kidney with 14%) and among lesions to 5%. Activity in organs and lesions varied by 10% (excluding 11.5% in right kidneys) and 4.2% respectively, whereas AC and ADR variations dropped below 5%.

Conclusions: Even in a simplified situation where the same patient dataset was analyzed using the same dosimetry procedure and software, significant disparities were observed in the results obtained. The results of the ‘real-time’ multi-centric dosimetry analysis were striking, with most variation sources identified as either error or permissible. Variations owing to human error may be minimized or avoided by performing intensive training sessions, establishing intermediate checkpoints, conducting sanity checks, and cross-validating results across physicists. This promotes the development of quality assurance in clinical dosimetry. This study produced a ‘benchmark dataset’ that includes expected dosimetry results for the considered dosimetry procedure and software that will be made available freely. The work should be extended to various dosimetry softwares. Simulated datasets should provide ground truth for accuracy assessment. This will allow individuals to train themselves and increase their proficiency in clinical dosimetry procedures.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue supplement 2
August 1, 2022
  • 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.
Precision in dosimetric analysis and generation of a benchmark dosimetry dataset - An IAEA study
(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
Precision in dosimetric analysis and generation of a benchmark dosimetry dataset - An IAEA study
Gunjan Kayal, Nathaly Barbosa, Carlos Marín, Ludovic Ferrer, José Alejandro FRAGOSO NEGRIN, Darko Grosev, Santosh Gupta, Nur Hidayati, Robert Hobbs, Tumelo Moalosi, Gian Luca Poli, Parul Thakral, Virginia Tsapaki, Sebastien Vauclin, Alex Vergara-Gil, Peter Knoll, Manuel Bardiès
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2812;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Precision in dosimetric analysis and generation of a benchmark dosimetry dataset - An IAEA study
Gunjan Kayal, Nathaly Barbosa, Carlos Marín, Ludovic Ferrer, José Alejandro FRAGOSO NEGRIN, Darko Grosev, Santosh Gupta, Nur Hidayati, Robert Hobbs, Tumelo Moalosi, Gian Luca Poli, Parul Thakral, Virginia Tsapaki, Sebastien Vauclin, Alex Vergara-Gil, Peter Knoll, Manuel Bardiès
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2812;
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

  • Predictive value of dose metrics from 99mTc-MAA compared to 90Y SPECT/CT in Dosimetry-Guided Personalized SIRT of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  • Feasibility and reliability assessment of single imaging time-point for organ and tumour dosimetry following 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT
  • Accurate dosimetry with fewer scans: Evaluation of the Prior-Information Approach to 177Lu-DOTATATE dosimetry
Show more Dosimetry & Image Analysis

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire