Error evaluation of the D-shuttle dosimeter technique in positron emission tomography study
- 42 Downloads
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.
KeywordsError D-shuttle dosimeter positioning Whole-body dynamic PET imaging D-shuttle dosimeter technique
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.
This research article does not contain any human and animal studies.
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.National Electrical Manufacturers Association. “NEMA Standards Publication NU 2–2007, Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs”. 2007. Rosslyn. 26–33.Google Scholar
- 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.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.Okazaki M, Inoue Y, Amano M. Development of “‘Eminence STARGATE’” PET/CT system. Shimadzu Rev. 2009;65(3–4):203–10.Google Scholar