Advertisement

Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 363–373 | Cite as

Error evaluation of the D-shuttle dosimeter technique in positron emission tomography study

  • Md. Shahidul Islam
  • Shoichi Watanuki
  • Manabu Tashiro
  • Hiroshi WatabeEmail author
Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

The D-shuttle dosimeter technique is a convenient approach for estimating the radiation dosimetry in a positron emission tomography (PET) study that employs multiple D-shuttle dosimeters attached to the body surface of a patient. To bring this technique into clinical usage, it is very important to evaluate its performance by investigating the bias associated with D-shuttle dosimeter positioning and by comparing the estimates with those of the whole-body dynamic PET imaging technique. The torso cavity and six spheres of the NEMA body phantom were filled with 18F-FDG solution, and then, the phantom was imaged for 1 h. We assumed the mislocated positioning of the D-shuttle dosimeters by shifting them in the z-direction (upper) in a range of 1–5 cm from the original positions. The cumulative radioactivities, absorbed doses, and effective dose were estimated using accurate and mislocated positions of the D-shuttle dosimeters. For comparison, the cumulative radioactivities were also estimated from the PET images, and then, the absorbed doses and effective dose were computed. The maximum bias of the average estimated cumulated radioactivities and the effective doses was − 15.0% and − 19.7% for the 1 cm shifted positions, respectively. The ratios of absorbed doses obtained from D-shuttle and PET measurement against the actual values were between 0.9 and 1.3, and 0.7 and 1.0, respectively. The bias associated with the D-shuttle dosimeter positions was significant and probably consistent, and both dosimetric techniques exhibited good performance in this phantom study.

Keywords

Error D-shuttle dosimeter positioning Whole-body dynamic PET imaging D-shuttle dosimeter technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 16K15342 from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japanese Government.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This research article does not contain any human and animal studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Yilmaz G, Tugrul AB, Demir M, Yasar D, Demir B, Buyuk B. PET/CT patient dosage assay. Int J Med Sci Eng. 2013;7(12):791–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger A. Positron emission tomography. BMJ. 2003;326(7404):1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgouros G, Thomas SR. MIRD pamphlet no 21: a generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry-standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 106 publication. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Ann ICRP 2008;38(1–2):21–24.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brix GD, Malone M, Mantil J, O’Reilly J, Rehani G, Relan MM, Shortt N, Thompson K, Townsend W, Yonekura Y. Radiation protection in newer medical imaging techniques: IAEA SAFETY RELATED PUBLICATIONS. IAEA Nucl Secur Ser 2008:1–41.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NRL, Willemsen ATM, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaushik A, Jaimini A, Tripathi M, et al. Estimation of radiation dose to patients from 18FDG whole body PET/CT investigations using dynamic PET scan protocol. Indian J Med Res. 2015;142:721–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie T, Bolch WE, Lee C, Zaidi H. Pediatric radiation dosimetry for positron-emitting radionuclides using anthropomorphic phantoms. Med Phys. 2013;40(10):102502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toohey RE, Stabin MG, Watson EE. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Internal radiation dosimetry: principles and applications. RadioGraphics. 2000;20(2):533–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sakata M, Oda K, Toyohara J, Ishii K, Nariai T, Ishiwata K. Direct comparison of radiation dosimetry of six PET tracers using human whole-body imaging and murine biodistribution studies. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garg PK, Lokitz SJ, Nazih R, Garg S. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 11 C-nicotine from whole-body PET imaging in humans. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:473–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deloar HM, Fujiwara T, Shidahara M, Nakamura T, Yamadera A, Itoh M. Internal absorbed dose estimation by a TLD method for 18 F-FDG and comparison with the dose estimates from whole body PET. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Islam MS, Watanuki S, Tashiro M, Watabe H. Internal radiation dose estimation using multiple D-shuttle dosimeters for positron emission tomography (PET): a validation study using NEMA body phantom. Med Phys. 2018;45(10):4693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White DR, Booz J, Griffith RV, Spokas JJ, Wilson IJ. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement, the international commission on radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), Report 44. 1989; os23:pages NP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sato T, Iwamoto Y, Hashimoto S, et al. Features of particle and heavy ion transport code system (PHITS) version 3.02. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2018;3131:1–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. “NEMA Standards Publication NU 2–2007, Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs”. 2007. Rosslyn. 26–33.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greer K, Perry T. Data Spectrum’s NEMA IEC Body Phantom Set User’s Manual. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2006, Product ID: PET/IEC-BODY/P, Manual Number: PET/IEC-BODY/UM.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 103 publication. The recommendations of the International Commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;2007(37):1–34.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okazaki M, Inoue Y, Amano M. Development of “‘Eminence STARGATE’” PET/CT system. Shimadzu Rev. 2009;65(3–4):203–10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loening AM, Gambhir SS. AMIDE: a free software tool for multimodality medical image analysis. Mol Imaging. 2003;2(3):131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stabin MG, Sparks RB, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1023–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ficaro EP, Zanzonico P, Stabin MG, Raff GL, et al. Variability in radiation dose estimates from nuclear and computed tomography diagnostic imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16(2):331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Radiation Protection and Safety Control, Cyclotron and Radioisotope Centre, Graduate School of Biomedical EngineeringTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  2. 2.Division of Cyclotron Nuclear Medicine, Cyclotron and Radioisotope CentreTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  3. 3.Radiation Control DivisionBangladesh Atomic Energy Regulatory AuthorityDhakaBangladesh
  4. 4.Bangladesh Atomic Energy CommissionDhakaBangladesh
  5. 5.Radiation Informatics for Medical Imaging, Graduate School of Biomedical EngineeringTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations