Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment.
Austin 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: Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Molecular Imaging, Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Radionuclide Metrology Group, Nuclear Stewardship, ANSTO, Sydney, Australia
Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (ARTnet), Australia
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia
Issue Date: Apr-2018 2018-01-11
Publication information: Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018; 59(4): 636-638
Abstract: We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia. Methods: Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga 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 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV. Results: At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems 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 for 68Ga 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 is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.202861
ORCID: 0000-0002-6656-295X
PubMed URL: 29326354
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: 68Ga
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM


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