Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20936
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBailey, Dale L-
dc.contributor.authorHofman, Michael S-
dc.contributor.authorForwood, Nicholas J-
dc.contributor.authorO'Keefe, Graeme J-
dc.contributor.authorScott, Andrew M-
dc.contributor.authorvan Wyngaardt, Winifred M-
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Bonnie-
dc.contributor.authorKovacev, Olga-
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Roslyn J-
dc.date2018-01-11-
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-05T01:28:52Z-
dc.date.available2019-06-05T01:28:52Z-
dc.date.issued2018-04-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018; 59(4): 636-638-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20936-
dc.description.abstractWe 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.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subject68Ga-
dc.subjectPET-
dc.subjectcalibration-
dc.subjectstandardization-
dc.subjecttrial-
dc.titleAccuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationMolecular Imaging, Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationOlivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationRadionuclide Metrology Group, Nuclear Stewardship, ANSTO, Sydney, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (ARTnet), Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia-
dc.identifier.doi10.2967/jnumed.117.202861-
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-6656-295X-
dc.identifier.pubmedid29326354-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
dc.type.austinMulticenter Study-
dc.type.austinResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't-
local.name.researcherScott, Andrew M
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptMolecular Imaging and Therapy-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

18
checked on Jul 25, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


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