Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 9830386, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9830386
Research Article

Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging

1ENEA, National Institute of Ionizing Radiation Metrology, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy
2National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to Marco D’Arienzo; ti.aene@ozneirad.ocram

Received 12 June 2017; Accepted 15 August 2017; Published 12 October 2017

Academic Editor: David A. Winkler

Copyright © 2017 Marco D’Arienzo and Maurice Cox. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. D. L. Bailey and K. P. Willowson, “An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 83–89, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. D’Arienzo, M. Capogni, V. Smyth et al., “Metrological issues in molecular radiotherapy,” EPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 77, Article ID 00022, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. Y. K. Dewaraja, E. C. Frey, G. Sgouros et al., “MIRD pamphlet no. 23: Quantitative SPECT for patient-specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1310–1325, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. NEMA Standards Publication NU 1-2012, Performance Measurements of Gamma Cameras, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2012.
  5. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2007, Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2007.
  6. M.-M. Bé, V. Chisté, C. Dulieu et al., Table of Radionuclides, Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 2004.
  7. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM 100 Series, 2008.
  8. S. Gnesin, P. Leite Ferreira, J. Malterre, P. Laub, J. O. Prior, and F. R. Verdun, “Phantom validation of Tc-99m absolute quantification in a SPECT/CT commercial device,” Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2016, Article ID 4360371, 6 pages, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. M. A. Lodge, A. Rahmim, and R. L. Wahl, “Simultaneous measurement of noise and spatial resolution in PET phantom images,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1069–1081, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. B. E. Zimmerman and S. Judge, “Traceability in nuclear medicine,” Metrologia, vol. 44, no. 4, article no. S16, pp. S127–S132, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. Report of AAPM Task Group 181, The Selection, Use, Calibration, and Quality Assurance of Radionuclide Calibrators Used in Nuclear Medicine, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2012.
  12. I. Ciesniewski and J. Ratcliff, “Understanding measurement uncertainty in weighing,” Pharmaceutical Technology, vol. 40, no. 4, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  13. A. T. Elliot, “Quality assurance,” in Practical Nuclear Medicine, Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  14. E. C. Frey, J. L. Humm, and M. Ljungberg, “Accuracy and precision of radioactivity quantification in nuclear medicine images,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 208–218, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. P. E. Kinahan, B. H. Hasegawa, and T. Beyer, “X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 166–179, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. A. Patton and T. G. Turkington, “SPECT/CT physical principles and attenuation correction,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. G. Wagenknecht, H.-J. Kaiser, F. M. Mottaghy, and H. Herzog, “MRI for attenuation correction in PET: Methods and challenges,” Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 99–113, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. V. Keereman, Y. Fierens, T. Broux, Y. De Deene, M. Lonneux, and S. Vandenberghe, “MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI using ultrashort echo time sequences,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 812–818, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. Martinez-Moller, M. Souvatzoglou, G. Delso et al., “Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 520–526, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. V. Schulz, I. Torres-Espallardo, S. Renisch et al., “Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 138–152, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. M. Hofmann, F. Steinke, V. Scheel et al., “MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI: A novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1875–1883, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M.-L. Montandon and H. Zaidi, “Atlas-guided non-uniform attenuation correction in cerebral 3D PET imaging,” NeuroImage, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 278–286, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. H. Arabi and H. Zaidi, “Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI using a sorted atlas approach,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 31, pp. 1–15, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. Hofmann, I. Bezrukov, F. Mantlik et al., “MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1392–1399, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. G. Schramm, J. Langner, F. Hofheinz et al., “Quantitative accuracy of attenuation correction in the Philips Ingenuity TF whole-body PET/MR system: a direct comparison with transmission-based attenuation correction,” Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 115–126, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. A. Mehranian and H. Zaidi, “Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 635–641, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. M. D'Arienzo, “Emission of β + Particles Via Internal Pair Production in the 0+ –0+ Transition of 90Zr: Historical Background and Current Applications in Nuclear Medicine Imaging,” Atoms, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–12, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. R. G. Selwyn, R. J. Nickles, B. R. Thomadsen, L. A. DeWerd, and J. A. Micka, “A new internal pair production branching ratio of 90Y: the development of a non-destructive assay for 90Y and 90Sr,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 318–327, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. http://mrtdosimetry-empir.eu/.
  30. M. D'Arienzo, M. Cazzato, M. L. Cozzella et al., “Gamma camera calibration and validation for quantitative SPECT imaging with 177Lu,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 112, pp. 156–164, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. N. Anizan, H. Wang, X. C. Zhou, R. F. Hobbs, R. L. Wahl, and E. C. Frey, “Factors affecting the stability and repeatability of gamma camera calibration for quantitative imaging applications based on a retrospective review of clinical data,” EJNMMI Research, vol. 4, no. 1, article no. 67, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. http://projects.npl.co.uk/metromrt/.
  33. M. Baker, K. Chari, S. M. Judge, T. D. MacMahon, and A. J. Stroak, “A review of commercial radionuclide calibrators,” National Physical Laboratory Report DQL-RN 003, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  34. R. Boellaard, M. J. O’Doherty, A. Chiti, and B. J. Krause, “FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 181–200, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  35. S. Pommé, “The uncertainty of the half-life,” Metrologia, vol. 52, no. 3, article no. S51, pp. S51–S65, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. S. Pommé, J. Camps, R. Van Ammel, and J. Paepen, “Protocol for uncertainty assessment of half-lives,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 2, pp. 335–339, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. M. J. Woods and S. M. Collins, “Half-life data - a critical review of TECDOC-619 update,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 60, no. 2-4, pp. 257–262, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. L. Strigari, M. Konijnenberg, C. Chiesa et al., “The evidence base for the use of internal dosimetry in the clinical practice of molecular radiotherapy,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1976–1988, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus