Quantitative PET-Bildgebung für die Dosimetrie an Beispielen von 124I, 86Y, 68Ga und 44Sc

Vanessa Stebner; Philipp Hetkamp; Ina Binse; Walter Jentzen

doi:10.1055/s-0043-120726

Der Nuklearmediziner, Table of Contents

Der Nuklearmediziner 2018; 41(01): 37-51
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-120726

Dosimetrie

Quantitative PET-Bildgebung für die Dosimetrie an Beispielen von ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, ⁶⁸Ga und ⁴⁴Sc

Quantitative PET Imaging for the Dosimetry as exemplified by ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, ⁶⁸Ga, and ⁴⁴Sc

Vanessa Stebner^*

Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen

,

Philipp Hetkamp^*

Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen

,

Ina Binse

Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen

,

Walter Jentzen

Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Die prätherapeutische PET-Dosimetrie gewinnt insbesondere in der Radionuklidtherapie zur Behandlung von Krebserkrankungen immer mehr an Bedeutung. Im Vergleich zu anderen bildgebenden Verfahren der Nuklearmedizin ermöglicht sie eine genauere Bestimmung der Energiedosen pro applizierte Therapieaktivität in Tumoren und Risikoorganen. Zum Beispiel werden die Radionuklide ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y und ⁶⁸Ga zur Optimierung der Radiojodtherapie von Schilddrüsenkarzinomen und zur Therapieplanung von Somatostatinrezeptor-positiven Tumoren eingesetzt. Das kürzlich eingeführte PET-Nuklid ⁴⁴Sc rückt immer mehr in den Fokus als Ersatz für ⁶⁸Ga, weil es auch Spätmessungen mit ausreichender Bildqualität erlaubt. Zur Abschätzung der Energiedosis ist eine genaue PET-Quantifizierung der räumlichen und zeitlichen Tracer-Aktivitätsverteilung im Tumor bzw. Organ notwendig. Im Vergleich zum Standard-Radionuklid ¹⁸F besitzen ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y und ⁴⁴Sc ungünstige Zerfallseigenschaften. Die Quantifizierung ist dadurch beeinträchtigt. Außerdem werden die Aktivitäten von kleinen Tumoren durch den bekannten Partial-Volumen-Effekt beeinflusst. In dieser Arbeit werden die wesentlichen Faktoren zur PET-Quantifizierung beschrieben, die bei der Anwendung von ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, ⁶⁸Ga und ⁴⁴Sc bei der prätherapeutischen Dosimetrie zu berücksichtigen sind. Darüber hinaus werden klinische Dosimetrieprotokolle von ausgewählten Arbeiten und ihre Korrekturverfahren kurz präsentiert.

Abstract

Pretherapeutic PET dosimetry is becoming increasingly important, in particular in targeted radionuclide therapy for the treatment of cancer diseases. Compared to other nuclear imaging modalities, PET allows a more precise determination of absorbed radiation doses per unit administered therapeutic activity in tumours and organs at risks. For instance, the radionuclides ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, and ⁶⁸Ga are used to optimise radioiodine therapy of thyroid carcinomas and to plan therapy of somatostatin receptor-positive tumours. The novel PET nuclide ⁴⁴Sc is increasingly moving into focus as a possible substitute for ⁶⁸Ga because it allows late measurements with sufficient image quality. For estimating the absorbed radiation dose, an accurate PET quantification of the spatial and temporal tracer activity distribution within the tumour or organ at risk is necessary. Compared to the standard radionuclide ¹⁸F, ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, and ⁴⁴Sc exhibit unfavourable decay properties that affect quantification. In addition, the activities of small tumours are influenced by the well-known partial volume effect. In this work, the essential factors for PET quantification are described that have to be taken into account when using ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, ⁶⁸Ga, and ⁴⁴Sc for dosimetry purposes. Furthermore, clinical dosimetry protocols of selected studies and their correction approaches are shortly presented.

Schlüsselwörter

Positronen-Emissionstomografie - Radionuklidtherapie - Partial-Volumen-Effekt - Dosimetrie, prompte Gammastrahlung - ¹²⁴I - ⁸⁶Y - ⁶⁸Ga - ⁴⁴Sc

Keywords

positron emission tomography - radionuclide therapy - partial volume effect - dosimetry - prompt gamma radiation, ¹²⁴I, ⁸⁶Y, ⁶⁸Ga, ⁴⁴Sc

Full Text

References

Literatur
1 Alessio A, Kinahan P. Application of a spatially variant system model for 3-D whole-body PET image reconstruction Proc. IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2008; 1315–138
2 Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A. et al. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 862-869
3 Barone R, Borson-Chazot F, Valkema R. et al. Patient-specific dosimetry in predicting renal toxicity with ⁹⁰Y-DOTATOC: relevance of kidney volume and dose rate in finding a dose-effect relationship. J Nucl Med 2005; 46 (Suppl. 01) 99S-106S
4 Baum RP, Kulkarni HR, Carreras C. Peptides and receptors in image-guided therapy: theranostics for neuroendocrine neoplasms. Semin Nucl Med 2012; 42: 190-207
5 Baum RP, Kulkarni HR, Volkmer B. et al. Theranostics of metastatic prostate cancer applying ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA small molecules in combination with ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Nuklearmediziner 2015; 38: 145-152
6 Bazañez-Borgert M, Bundschuh RA, Herz M. et al. Radioactive spheres without inactive wall for lesion simulation in PET. Z Med Phys 2008; 18: 37-42
7 Beijst C, Kist JW, Elschot M. et al. Quantitative comparison of ¹²⁴I PET/CT and ¹³¹I SPECT/CT detectability. J Nucl Med 2016; 57: 103-108
8 Bettinardi V, Castiglioni I, De Bernardi E. et al. PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2014; 2: 199-121
9 Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS. et al. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1519-1527
10 Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 808-817
11 Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA. et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging. version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 181-200
12 Braad PE, Hansen SB, Thisgaard H. et al. PET imaging with the non-pure positron emitters: ⁵⁵Co, ⁸⁶Y and ¹²⁴I. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60: 3479-3497
13 Beattie PJ, Pentlow KS, OʼDonoghue J. et al. A recommendation for revised dose calibrator measurement procedures for ⁸⁹Zr and ¹²⁴I. PLoS One 2014; 9: e106868
14 Buchholz HG, Herzog H, Förster GJ. et al. PET imaging with yttrium-86: comparison of phantom measurements acquired with different PET scanners before and after applying background subtraction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 716-720
15 Bunka M, Müller C, Vermeulen C. et al. Imaging quality of ⁴⁴Sc in comparison with five other PET radionuclides using Derenzo phantoms and preclinical PET. Appl Radiat Isot 2016; 110: 129-133
16 Chen CH, Muzic RF Jr, Nelson AD. et al. Simultaneous recovery of size and radioactivity concentration of small spheroids with PET data. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 118-130
17 Chu SYF, Ekström LP, Firestone RB. The Lund/LBNL Nuclear Data Search: version 2.0. 02/1999 http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se
18 Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion. EJNMMI Phys 2016; 3: 8
19 Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius PH. et al. A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57: R119-R159
20 Ezziddin S, Lohmar J, Yong-Hing CJ. et al. Does the pretherapeutic tumor SUV in ⁶⁸Ga DOTATOC PET predict the absorbed dose of ¹⁷⁷Lu octreotate?. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37: 141-147
21 Flux G, Bardies M, Monsieurs M. et al. The impact of PET and SPECT on dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy. Z Med Phys 2006; 16: 47-59
22 Flux GD, Guy MJ, Beddows R. et al. Estimation and implications of random errors in whole-body dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47: 3211-3223
23 Freudenberg LS, Jentzen W, Görges R. et al. ¹²⁴I-PET dosimetry in advanced differentiated thyroid cancer: therapeutic impact. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 121-128
24 Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M. et al. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 635-639
25 Gudkov SV, Shilyagina NY, Vodeneev VA. et al. Targeted radionuclide therapy of human tumors. Int J Mol Sc 2015; 17
26 Hardiansyah D, Guo W, Attarwala AA. et al. Treatment planning in PRRT based on simulated PET data and a PBPK model. Determination of accuracy using a PET noise model. Nuklearmedizin 2017; 56: 23-30
27 Hayden C, Casey M, Watson C. Prompt gamma correction for non-standard isotopes in a PET scanner. US Patent 7,894,652, 2011
28 Helisch A, Förster GJ, Reber H. et al. Pre-therapeutic dosimetry and biodistribution of ⁸⁶Y-DOTA-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide versus ¹¹¹In-pentetreotide in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 1386-1392
29 Herzog H, Tellmann L, Scholten B. et al. PET imaging problems with the non-standard positron emitters yttrium-86 and iodine-124. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 52: 159-165
30 Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FHP, Hoekstra OS. et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2010; 37: 1679-1687
31 Hofheinz F, Dittrich S, Pötzsch C. et al. Effects of cold sphere walls in PET phantom measurements on the volume reproducing threshold. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 1099-1113
32 Hong I, Rothfuss R, Michel C. et al. Prompt gamma correction on Ga-68 PSMA PET studies. In: IEEE Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2015
33 Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, Phelps ME. et al. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 3. Effect of sampling. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980; 4: 819-826
34 Jentzen W. Experimental investigation of factors affecting the absolute recovery coefficients in iodine-124 PET lesion imaging. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 2365-2398
35 Jentzen W. An improved iterative thresholding method to delineate PET volumes using the delineation-averaged signal instead of the enclosed maximum signal. J Nucl Med Technol 2015; 43: 28-35
36 Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Bockisch A. Quantitative imaging of ¹²⁴I with PET/ CT in pretherapy lesion dosimetry. Effects impairing image quantification and their corrections. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 55: 21-43
37 Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Eising E. et al. Optimized ¹²⁴I PET dosimetry protocol for radioiodine therapy of differentiated thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1017-1023
38 Jentzen W, Hobbs RF, Stahl A. et al. Pre-therapeutic ¹²⁴I PET(/CT) dosimetry confirms low average absorbed doses per administered ¹³¹I activity to the salivary glands in radioiodine therapy of differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 884-895
39 Jentzen W, Hoppenbrouwers J, van Leeuwen P. et al. Assessment of lesion response in the initial radioiodine treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer using ¹²⁴I PET imaging. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 1759-1765
40 Jentzen W, Verschure F, van Zon A. et al. ¹²⁴I PET assessment of response of bone metastases to initial radioiodine treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med 2016; 57: 1499-1504
41 Jentzen W, Weise R, Kupferschläger J. et al. Iodine-124 PET dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer: recovery coefficient in 2D and 3D modes for PET(/CT) systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 611-623
42 Kessler RM, Ellis JR, Eden M. Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1984; 8: 514-522
43 Kist JW, van der Vlies M, Hoekstra OS. et al. Calibration of PET/CT scanners for multicenter studies on differentiated thyroid cancer with ¹²⁴I. EJNMMI Res 2016; 6: 39
44 Heußer T, Mann P, Rank CM. et al. Investigation of the halo-artifact in ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0183329
45 Hickeson M, Yun M, Matthies A. et al. Use of a corrected standardized uptake value based on the lesion size on CT permits accurate characterization of lung nodules on FDG-PET Eur. J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 1639-1647
46 Jødal L, Le Loirec C, Champion C. Positron range in PET imaging: non-conventional isotopes. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 7419-7434
47 Katz L, Penfold AS. Range-energy relations for electrons and the determination of beta-ray end-point energies by absorption. Rev Mod Phys 1952; 24: 28-44
48 Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G. et al. The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity. Ann Nucl Med 2016; 30: 97-103
49 Leahy RM, Bai B, Asma E. Data corrections and quantitative PET. In: Magnus Dahlbom. (ed.) Physics of PET and SPECT Imaging. CRC Press; 2017: 235-257
50 Lubberink M, Abdul FatahS, Brans B. et al. The role of ¹²⁴I-positron emission tomography in diagnosis and treatment of thyroid carcinoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 52: 30-36
51 Lubberink M, Herzog H. Quantitative imaging of ¹²⁴I and ⁸⁶Y with PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38 Suppl 1: S10-S18
52 Mawlawi O, Kappadath SC, Pan T. et al. Factors affecting quantification in PET/CT imaging. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2008; 4: 34-45
53 Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2011; 648 (Suppl. 01) S236-S240
54 Munk OL, Tolbod LP, Hansen SB. et al. Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys 2017; 4: 5
55 Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C. et al. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2006; 25: 907-921
56 Preylowski V, Schlögl S, Schoenahl F. et al. Is the image quality of I-124-PET impaired by an automatic correction of prompt gammas?. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e71729
57 Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys 2013; 40: 064301
58 Rahmim A, Zaidi H. PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges. Nucl Med Commun 2008; 29: 193-207
59 Rösch F, Baum RP. Generator-based PET radiopharmaceuticals for molecular imaging of tumours: On the way to THERANOSTICS. Dalton Trans 2011; 40: 6104
60 Rösch F, Herzog H, Qaim SM. The beginning and development of the theranostic approach in nuclear medicine, as exemplified by the radionuclide pair ⁸⁶Y and ⁹⁰Y. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2017; 10
61 Schreyer AG, Grosse J, Hellwig D. CT-bedingte Artefakte in PET/CT-Bildern. Nuklearmediziner 2015; 38: 241-248
62 Singh A, van der Meulen NP, Müller C. et al. First-in-human PET/CT imaging of metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with cyclotron-produced ⁴⁴Sc-DOTATOC: a proof-of-concept study. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2017; 32: 124-132
63 Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 932-945
64 Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S. et al. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med 2009; 23: 341-348
65 Strigari L, Konijnenberg M, Chiesa C. et al. The evidence base for the use of internal dosimetry in the clinical practice of molecular radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 41: 1976-1988
66 Surti S, Scheuermann J. Image reconstruction for PET and SPECT. In: Magnus Dahlbom. (ed.) Physics of PET and SPECT Imaging. CRC Press; 2017: 211-234
67 Surti S, Scheuermann R, Karp JS. Correction technique for cascade gammas in I-124 imaging on a fully-3D, time-of-flight PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2009; 56: 653-660
68 Teo BK, Seo Y, Bacharach SL. et al. Partial-volume correction in PET: validation of an iterative postreconstruction method with phantom and patient data. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 802-810
69 Tohme MS, Qi J. Iterative image reconstruction for positron emission tomography based on a detector response function estimated from point source measurements. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54: 3709-3725
70 Tong S, Allesio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 1453-1473
71 Tong S, Alessio AM, Thielemans K. et al. Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2011; 58: 2264-2275
72 Umbricht CA, Benešová M, Schmid RM. et al. ⁴⁴Sc-PSMA-617 for radiotheragnostics in tandem with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617-preclinical investigations in comparison with ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-617. EJNMMI Res 2017; 7: 9-18
73 Vennart NJ, Bird N, Buscombe J. et al. Optimization of PET/CT image quality using the GE 'Sharp IR' point-spread function reconstruction algorithm. Nucl Med Commun 2017; 38: 471-479
74 Walczak R, Krajewski S, Szkliniarz K. et al. Cyclotron production of ⁴³Sc for PET imaging. EJNMMI Phys 2015; 2: 33
75 Watson CC, Hayden C, Casey ME. et al. Prompt gamma correction for improved quantification in ⁸²Rb PET. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 64P
76 Wierts R, Brans B, Havekes B. et al. Dose-response relationship in differentiated thyroid cancer patients undergoing radioiodine treatment assessed by means of ¹²⁴I PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2016; 57: 1027-1032
77 Wollenweber SD, McDaniel DL, Stearns CW. Method and system for scatter correction. US Patent 8,017,914, 2011
78 Wooten AL, Lewis BC, Szatkowski DJ. et al. Calibration setting numbers for dose calibrators for the PET isotopes ⁵²Mn, ⁶⁴Cu, ⁷⁶Br, ⁸⁶Y, ⁸⁹Zr, ¹²⁴I. Appl Radiat Isot 2016; 113: 89-95
79 Zaidi H, El NaqaI. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 2165-2187
80 Zanzonico P. Principles of nuclear medicine imaging: planar, SPECT, PET, multi-modality, and autoradiography systems. Radiat Res 2012; 177: 349-364