skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A GATE evaluation of the sources of error in quantitative {sup 90}Y PET

Journal Article · · Medical Physics
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4961747· OSTI ID:22689266
;  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4]
  1. IMIV, U1023 Inserm/CEA/Université Paris-Sud and ERL 9218 CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA/SHFJ, Orsay 91401 (France)
  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes and CRCNA, Inserm U892, Nantes 44000 (France)
  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hôpital Beaujon, HUPNVS, APHP and Inserm U1149, Clichy 92110 (France)
  4. Siemens Healthcare Molecular Imaging, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37932 (United States)

Purpose: Accurate reconstruction of the dose delivered by {sup 90}Y microspheres using a postembolization PET scan would permit the establishment of more accurate dose–response relationships for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with {sup 90}Y. However, the quality of the PET data obtained is compromised by several factors, including poor count statistics and a very high random fraction. This work uses Monte Carlo simulations to investigate what impact factors other than low count statistics have on the quantification of {sup 90}Y PET. Methods: PET acquisitions of two phantoms—a NEMA PET phantom and the NEMA IEC PET body phantom-containing either {sup 90}Y or {sup 18}F were simulated using GATE. Simulated projections were created with subsets of the simulation data allowing the contributions of random, scatter, and LSO background to be independently evaluated. The simulated projections were reconstructed using the commercial software for the simulated scanner, and the quantitative accuracy of the reconstruction and the contrast recovery of the reconstructed images were evaluated. Results: The quantitative accuracy of the {sup 90}Y reconstructions were not strongly influenced by the high random fraction present in the projection data, and the activity concentration was recovered to within 5% of the known value. The contrast recovery measured for simulated {sup 90}Y data was slightly poorer than that for simulated {sup 18}F data with similar count statistics. However, the degradation was not strongly linked to any particular factor. Using a more restricted energy range to reduce the random fraction in the projections had no significant effect. Conclusions: Simulations of {sup 90}Y PET confirm that quantitative {sup 90}Y is achievable with the same approach as that used for {sup 18}F, and that there is likely very little margin for improvement by attempting to model aspects unique to {sup 90}Y, such as the much higher random fraction or the presence of bremsstrahlung in the singles data.

OSTI ID:
22689266
Journal Information:
Medical Physics, Vol. 43, Issue 10; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0094-2405
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English