title: Improved dose-volume histogram estimates for radiopharmaceutical therapy by optimizing quantitative SPECT reconstruction parameters.
abstract: In radiopharmaceutical therapy, an understanding of the dose distribution in normal and target tissues is important for optimizing treatment. Three-dimensional (3D) dosimetry takes into account patient anatomy and the nonuniform uptake of radiopharmaceuticals in tissues. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) provide a useful summary representation of the 3D dose distribution and have been widely used for external beam treatment planning. Reliable 3D dosimetry requires an accurate 3D radioactivity distribution as the input. However, activity distribution estimates from SPECT are corrupted by noise and partial volume effects (PVEs). In this work, we systematically investigated OS-EM based quantitative SPECT (QSPECT) image reconstruction in terms of its effect on DVHs estimates. A modified 3D NURBS-based Cardiac-Torso (NCAT) phantom that incorporated a non-uniform kidney model and clinically realistic organ activities and biokinetics was used. Projections were generated using a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation; noise effects were studied using 50 noise realizations with clinical count levels. Activity images were reconstructed using QSPECT with compensation for attenuation, scatter and collimator-detector response (CDR). Dose rate distributions were estimated by convolution of the activity image with a voxel S kernel. Cumulative DVHs were calculated from the phantom and QSPECT images and compared both qualitatively and quantitatively. We found that noise, PVEs, and ringing artifacts due to CDR compensation all degraded histogram estimates. Low-pass filtering and early termination of the iterative process were needed to reduce the effects of noise and ringing artifacts on DVHs, but resulted in increased degradations due to PVEs. Large objects with few features, such as the liver, had more accurate histogram estimates and required fewer iterations and more smoothing for optimal results. Smaller objects with fine details, such as the kidneys, required more iterations and less smoothing at early time points post-radiopharmaceutical administration but more smoothing and fewer iterations at later time points when the total organ activity was lower. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of using optimal reconstruction and regularization parameters. Optimal results were obtained with different parameters at each time point, but using a single set of parameters for all time points produced near-optimal dose-volume histograms.
authors: The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. lcheng14@jhmi.edu
authors: Lishui
authors: L
authors: Cheng
authors: Robert F
authors: RF
authors: Hobbs
authors: Paul W
authors: PW
authors: Segars
authors: George
authors: G
authors: Sgouros
authors: Eric C
authors: EC
authors: Frey
mesh_terms: D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000532:radiotherapy; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D061089:Radiotherapy, Image-Guided / Q000379:methods*; D015899:Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals
references: J Nucl Med. 2005 Jan;46 Suppl 1:18S-27S
references: 15653648
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 May 15;21(1):71-8
references: 2032898
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2010 May;40(3):209-18
references: 20350630
references: Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003 Aug;18(4):611-7
references: 14503957
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Aug 21;51(16):3967-81
references: 16885618
references: J Nucl Med. 2012 Feb;53(2):215-24
references: 22251554
references: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Sep 7;50(17):4169-85
references: 16177538
references: Med Phys. 2004 Sep;31(9):2449-53
references: 15487724
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002 Sep;21(9):1040-50
references: 12564872
references: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Apr 21;50(8):1791-804
references: 15815096
references: J Nucl Med. 2007 Jan;48(1):134-42
references: 17204710
references: Methods. 2011 Nov;55(3):253-7
references: 21964397
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1847-56
references: 18427807
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2008 Sep;38(5):321-34
references: 18662554
references: J Nucl Med. 2002 Nov;43(11):1507-29
references: 12411555
references: Radiat Res Suppl. 1985;8:S13-9
references: 3867079
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jul 15;80(4):1256-62
references: 20950958
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 Jul;51(7):1155-62
references: 20554734
references: J Nucl Med. 2002 Aug;43(8):1101-9
references: 12163637
references: J Nucl Med. 2005 May;46(5):840-9
references: 15872359
references: J Nucl Med. 2004 Jul;45(7):1168-71
references: 15235063
references: Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Apr;28(4):426-34
references: 11357492
references: Med Phys. 2009 Feb;36(2):612-9
references: 19292001
references: Radiother Oncol. 1991 Mar;20(3):166-76
references: 1852908
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13(4):601-9
references: 18218538
references: Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6118-28
references: 23039651
references: Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003 Feb;18(1):99-107
references: 12667313
references: J Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;48(6):1008-16
references: 17504874