Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17327
Title: ACCURACY OF DOSE CALIBRATORS FOR GALLIUM-68 PET IMAGING: UNEXPECTED FINDINGS IN A MULTI-CENTRE CLINICAL PRE-TRIAL ASSESSMENT.
Authors: Bailey, Dale L;Hofman, Michael S;Forwood, Nicholas J;O'Keefe, Graeme J;Scott, Andrew M;van Wyngaardt, Winifred M;Howe, Bonnie;Kovacev, Olga;Francis, Roslyn J
Affiliation: Royal North Shore Hospital, Australia
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Australia
Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
ANSTO, Australia
Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (ARTnet), Australia
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Australia
Issue Date: 11-Jan-2018
EDate: 2018
Citation: Journal of nuclear medicine 2018; online first: 11 January
Abstract: AIMS: We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multi-centre clinical PET imaging trial using68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET cameras from different manufacturers at a number of different facilities around Australia.METHODS:Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol prior to commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from ten nuclear medicine facilities in Australia with the aim for each PET camera being to produce images within ±5% of the true SUV value.RESULTS:At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range -13% - -23%). Multiple PET cameras at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values.CONCLUSION:PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain can, however, be simply performed and should form part of any quality assurance (QA) programme or pre-qualifying site assessment prior to commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17327
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.202861
ORCID: 0000-0002-6656-295X
PubMed URL: 29326354
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Calibration
Gallium-68
Instrumentation
PET
PET/CT
Radiation Physics
Research Methods
Standardisation
Trial
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.