Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 649–657 | Cite as

Assessment of collimators in radium-223 imaging with channelized Hotelling observer: a simulation study

  • Akihiko Takahashi
  • Shingo Baba
  • Masayuki Sasaki
Original Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Radium-223 (223Ra) is used in unsealed radionuclide therapy for metastatic bone tumors. The aim of this study is to apply a computational model observer to 223Ra planar images, and to assess the performance of collimators in 223Ra imaging.

Methods

The 223Ra planar images were created via an in-house Monte Carlo simulation code using HEXAGON and NAI modules. The phantom was a National Electrical Manufacturers Association body phantom with a hot sphere. The concentration of the background was 55 Bq/mL, and the sphere was approximately 1.5–20 times that of the background concentration. The acquisition time was 10 min. The photopeaks (and the energy window) were 84 (full width of energy window: 20%), 154 (15%), and 270 keV (10%). Each 40 images, with and without hot concentration, were applied to a three-channel difference-of-Gaussian channelized Hotelling observer (CHO), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the hot region was calculated. The images were examined using five different collimators: two low-energy general-purpose (LEGP), two medium-energy general-purpose (MEGP), and one high-energy general-purpose (HEGP) collimators.

Results

The SNR value was linearly proportional to the contrast of the hot region for all collimators and energy windows. The images of the 84-keV energy window with the MEGP collimator that have thicker septa and larger holes produced the highest SNR value. The SNR values of two LEGP collimators were approximately half of the MEGP collimators. The HEGP collimator was halfway between the MEGP and LEGP. Similar characteristics were observed for other energy windows (154, 270 keV). The SNR value of images captured via the 270-keV energy window was larger than 154-keV, although the sensitivity of the 270-keV energy window is lower than 154-keV. The results suggested a positive correlation between the SNR value and the fraction of unscattered photons.

Conclusions

The SNR value of CHO reflected the performance of collimators and was available to assess and quantitatively evaluate the collimator performance in 223Ra imaging. The SNR value depends on the magnitudes of unscattered photon count and the fraction of unscattered photon count. Consequently, in this study, MEGP collimators performed better than LEGP and HEGP collimators for 223Ra imaging.

Keywords

Radium-223 Monte Carlo simulation Channelized Hotelling observer Radionuclide therapy Bone scintigraphy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Shuzo Uehara for providing the original simulation codes (HEXAGON and NAI) and a wealth of valuable advice. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Ryota Oshima for his assistance. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Nilsson S, Larsen RH, Foss SD, Balteskard L, Borch KW, Westlin J-E, et al. First clinical experience with α-emitting radium-223 in the treatment of skeletal metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;12:4451–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hindorf C, Chittenden S, Aksnes A-K, Parker C, Chris F, Glenn D. Quantitative imaging of 223Ra-chloride (Alpharadin) for targeted alpha-emitting radionuclide therapy of bone metastases. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrasquillo JA, O’Donoghue JA, Taskar NP, Humm JL, Rathkopf DE, Slovin SF, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and biodistribution study with escalating doses of 223Ra-dichloride in men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1384–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lassmann M, Nosske D. Dosimetry of 223Ra-chloride: dose to normal organs and tissues. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chittenden SJ, Hindorf C, Parker CC, Lewington VJ, Pratt BE, Johnson B, et al. A phase 1, open-label study of the biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and dosimetry of 223Ra-dichloride in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and skeletal metastases. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pacilio M, Ventroni G, Cassano B, Ialongo P, Lorenzon L, Castro ED, Recine F, Sternberg CN, Mango L. A case report of image-based dosimetry of bone metastases with Alpharadin (223Ra-dichloride) therapy: inter-fraction variability of absorbed dose and follow-up. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:163–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshida K, Kaneta T, Takano S, Sugiura M, Kawano T, Hino A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of single dose radium-223 dichloride (BAY 88-8223) in Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pacilio M, Ventroni G, De Vincentis G, Cassano B, Pellegrini R, Di Castro E, et al. Dosimetry of bone metastases in targeted radionuclide therapy with alpha-emitting 223Ra-dichloride. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pibida L, Zimmerman B, Fitzgerald R, King L, Cessna JT, Bergeron D. DE. Determination of photon emission probabilities for the main gamma-rays of 223Ra in equilibrium with its progeny. Appl Radiat Isot. 2015;101:15–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Owaki Y, Nakahara T, Kosaka T, Fukuda J, Kumabe A, Ichimura A, et al. Ra-223 SPECT for semi-quantitative analysis in comparison with Tc-99m HMDP SPECT: phantom study and initial clinical experience. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takahashi A, Miwa K, Sasaki M, Baba S. A Monte Carlo study on 223Ra imaging for unsealed radionuclide therapy. Med Phys. 2016;43:2965–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonetto P, Qi P, Leahy RM. Covariance approximation for first and accurate computation of channelized Hotelling observer statistics. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gifford HC, King MA, de Vries DJ, Soares EJ. Channelized Hotelling and human observer correlation for lesion detection in hepatic SPECT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:514–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qi J. Analysis of lesion detectability in Bayesian emission reconstruction with nonstationary object variability. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23:321–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oldan J, Kulkarni S, Xing Y, Khurd P, Gindi G. Channelized Hotelling and human observer study of optimal smoothing in SPECT MAP reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2004;51:733–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fakhri GE, Santos PA, Badawi RD, Holdsworth CH, Van Den Abbeele AD, Kijewski MF. Impact of acquisition geometry, image processing, and patient size on lesion detection in whole-body 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1951–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cao N, Huesman RH, Moses WW, Qi J. Detection performance analysis for time-of-flight PET. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:6931–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    He X, Links JM, Frey EC. An investigation of the trade-off between count level and image quality in myocardial perfusion SPECT using simulated images: the effects of statistical noise and object variability on defect detectability. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:4949–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fakhri GE, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:347–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brankov JG. Evaluation of the channelized Hotelling observer with an internal-noise model in a train-test paradigm for cardiac SPECT defect detection. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:7159–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wunderlich A, Noo F. New theoretical results on channelized Hotelling observer performance estimation with known difference of class means. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2013;60:182–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petibon Y, Fakhri GE, Nezafat R, Johnson N, Brady T, Ouyang J. Towards coronary plaque imaging using simultaneous PET-MR: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:1203–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li K, Garrett J, Ge Y, Chen G-H. Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems. Part II. Experimental assessment of spatial resolution performance. Med Phys. 2014;41:071911-1–12.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wunderlich W, Noo F, Gallas BD, Heilbrun ME. Exact confidence intervals for channelized Hotelling observer performance in image quality studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34:453–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka M, Uehara S, Kojima A, Matsumoto M. Monte Carlo simulation of energy spectra for 123I imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:4409–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akihiko Takahashi
    • 1
  • Shingo Baba
    • 2
  • Masayuki Sasaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Medical Quantum Science, Department of Health SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Clinical RadiologyKyushu University HospitalFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations